Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Entrepreneur On Yahoo/Tumblr: It's the Content Readers, Stupid

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the cost-of-doing-business dept.

Yahoo! 92

An anonymous reader writes "Weighing in on Yahoo's recent acquisition of Tumblr for $1.1 billion, social networking entrepreneur Adam Rifkin argues that Tumblr is extremely valuable business property because it has successfully organized itself around the 'Interest Graph' (people interested in the same hobbies or things), rather than the 'Social Graph' (family, friends, and coworkers/colleagues, as is typical for Facebook). He opines that, for a social networking site, readers are far more important than writers; writers, after all, 'have time but no money. Certain groups are going to be overrepresented: Students, stay-at-home moms, the underemployed, retirees.' While readers are just the opposite: they 'have money but no time.... They want to see a picture of a watch they like, and buy it now.' In other words, it's the readers of the content that businesses are trying to reach. And interest graphs can be specifically targeted by businesses, much more so than social graphs."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Fucking Asshole of Macabre De Lane (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827559)

Your rancid underhole is mine for the taking! I shall shove my fetid, disease-ridden cock right in that precious hole of yours and derive much pleasure from doing so. Shall I explore the mazes of your bootyass? What say you?

Re:The Fucking Asshole of Macabre De Lane (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828517)

I say there's probably a Tumblr page for you.

people actually read tumblr? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827561)

i read a ton online and absolutely 0% of that time is spent on tumblr.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827575)

Here [alexa.com] is a (rough, imperfect, insert-your-own-caveat-here) list of popular websites. Tumblr is #31.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43829417)

How are they ranked? Windows Live #9??? Ahead of Twitter #13? LinkedIn #12 ahead of Twitter #13? Blogspot #11 ahead of Google India #12???

Re:people actually read tumblr? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43829529)

Consider it a wakeup call that the electronically savvy are not necessarily the most electronically aware, I guess!

That being said, though, I think there are a few insights that can be offered: Windows Live is the default homepage on most new Windows machines, and might never be changed (an alarming number of people will readily type in "google" to Bing rather than set their homepage), and at any rate its rank would appear inflated because Google is fragmented. Twitter is probably behind LinkedIn because Alexa depends on embedded advertising js to count pagefetches, and Twitter is heavily accessed through external clients and has relatively fancy AJAX. Blogspot doesn't have as many different ccTLDs as Google itself, so many of the hits are aggregated (12.1% of all hits for Blogspot.com come from Indonesia, for example.)

Or maybe the Internet really just works that way! Hard to tell, really.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year and a half ago | (#43830069)

I have used 0 of the top 1, and 4 of the top 20 sites. I've used Yahoo in the past, but probably not in about 15 years.I would call myself a once a month user of Youtube.

Re: people actually read tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43848281)

That list is total bullshit Yahoo only bought tumblr because they have more active users that themselves and they wanted to get their views up and money back... Tumblr is far more popular than blogspot and ask.com these sites died years ago.

Re: people actually read tumblr? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43851635)

The list is compiled according to page hit stats and reflects the last month of traffic. It's quite accurate except for the relatively small fraction of people with adblock—and do keep in mind that things may be different in different countries. Ask, for example, only gets about a quarter of its traffic from the US; it's also rather popular in Japan, India, and Mexico.

Re: people actually read tumblr? (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43856413)

Plus there's an age distribution, and there's been a rather fast tumbling down of other sites.

Tumblr is more popular amongst current high-school kids than facebook is. Facebook is for parents and grandparents. Tumblr is for the current high school kids. Actually, facebook is for the bonus site to make for your parents to see that you're friends with the good kids and the appropriate hoity-toity-clubs like math-club, science-club, model United Nations, scouts of boys and girls, etc. [i do not know where the fight-club members are. no one talks about fight club... ;>) ]

  Two sites that were filled with questions have disappeared (or half-disappeared): formspring.com [formspring.com] (i'm on there somewhere, hint hint) was supposed to go dark in april but the web pages are still there. Ask.fm and a similar ask-a-question functionality on facebook supplanted formspring. And vyou.com [vyou.com] (pronounced view?) really did go completely dark. Some kids also have gone onto myspace, though who the hell knows why...

Formspring was really popular amongst the Brazilians. If you had a page with a popular name, say teresa or allyson (in all their spelling versions), you'd get bombarded with questions in portugese and threats asking you to get off of their formspring page so that they could have it.

Re: people actually read tumblr? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43856579)

(Probably worth noting that Tumblr also has Formspring-style questions these days.)

Re:people actually read tumblr? (1, Insightful)

sjwt (161428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827595)

I don't watch the Superbowl, but no matter how much time I spend say playing or watching Ice hockey it will in no way will diminish the value of targeting all those follow the NFL.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828111)

I don't think anyone really "reads" tumblr, they just wack-off to all the porn pics.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828187)

Links plz.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828335)

Everyone talks about tumblr and porn, but I have never seen any there. Give us some links or maybe you are just being a drama queen.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43829105)

Re:people actually read tumblr? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828161)

Yes, people go to tumbler. For more than porn? Er... And I think porn ads are already pretty easy to target.

Porn is the only good thing about Tumblr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830895)

Everything on Tumblr that's not porn is SJWs spreading their filthy messages of hate.

Re:people actually read tumblr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43829605)

I read a lot online too and I had never even heard of Tumblr until this Yahoo deal.

Another failed attempt a open source packaging (0)

axonis (640949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827585)

Poor engineering.

Re:Another failed attempt a open source packaging (1)

axonis (640949) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827629)

Remember Carol Bartz never knew anything about the internet, just how to waste money, its now built into Yahoo culture ... a Swiss thing

Not that easy (2)

Aerynvala (1109505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827605)

Tumblr is such a fast moving, weird place that finding the right things to market to the right 'readers' is not going to be as easy as all that. And a great many users are actively hostile to corporate manipulation.

Re:Not that easy (2)

kk49 (829669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827651)

They just need data, yahoo can then process it and build up an accurate model of you. People are more honest on tumblr...

Re:Not that easy (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827701)

They are frighteningly honest on Tumblr, that's true. I'm just not sure how they're going to be able to turn that information into a selling opportunity without radically altering the interface which would drive a huge portion of the audience away.

Re:Not that easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828311)

You can either possess Tumblr's audience or you can influence Tumblr's audience, but never both at the same time.

  - The Tumblr uncertainty principle.

Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830439)

Tumblr is one of the very few places on the Internet where bigotry flows like water and the owners do nothing to stop it.

Re:Indeed (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43830565)

Oh no, they're very good at cracking down on people of color who dare respond to white supremacist hate blogs. /bitter

Re:Not that easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827777)

I wonder if people will continue to be honest on Tumblr now that Yahoo! is the new owner.

Re:Not that easy (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827929)

I've seen no appreciable change yet on my dashboard. Of greater concern so far are blogs that seek out personal posts and repost them for mocking/abuse.

Re:Not that easy (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827965)

They just need data, yahoo can then process it and build up an accurate model of you. People are more honest on tumblr...

well what this guy is saying is that tumblr is worth so much because you can target the readers better because you know that they read a blog about cats and sexy women.

like, no shit sherlock? but it's not stupid to think that is not actually worth a billion dollars. I mean, how many men are they going to sell lingerie to..

Why dissociate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827635)

I don't think it is right to dissociate the social graph from the interest graph. There are things (people, topics, groups...) linked by relationships. Depending of your goals you can analyze some kind of relationships and later some other kinds for other purposes. The error would be to use only the social or the interest graph. Success will be to build the analysis on the right relationships at the right time.

Monitization Guess (2)

kk49 (829669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827637)

They will gather information about you on tumblr and sell ads on other sites. So this is the best route for Tumblr to become profitable without losing "street cred" (So lame that that is a business term)

Yahoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827705)

Yahoo! will make changes. The only thing they publically said was they won't "fuck it up" - which can mean anything.

It's like the Benny Hill joke: "I charge a fair price."

Buyer: "It's really expensive!"

BH: "It's fair to me!"

Re:Monitization Guess (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827713)

Ah, okay...that actually makes a lot of sense. Tumblr itself isn't really suited to advertising. The 'radar' thing is a very tiny vector and easily disregarded.

...One revenue of Money maybe (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827939)

Ah, okay...that actually makes a lot of sense. Tumblr itself isn't really suited to advertising.

I don't disagree with the parent comment(although only as an *extra* revenue stream) to there overlords Microsoft, but a disagree with yours Why wouldn't an advertisement for cat products not be suitable for displaying on a page of long haired cats. In fact for tumblr itself it does not have to profile you *like* Microsoft and Apple do it can profile the site your watching. Like Amazon so with your shopping basket. I actually think Amazon had a missed opportunity.

Re:...One revenue of Money maybe (2)

Aerynvala (1109505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827963)

Well most people view tumblr on their dashboard which doesn't have a lot of 'white space' for ads to slip into. I suppose ads could be inserted into your dashboard stream as if they were another blog post, but I think that would cause a serious revolt.

Re:...One revenue of Money maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830677)

Put ads on the sides of the dashboard, then.

Seriously, there's a ridiculous amount of completely unused whitespace on both sides of the Dashboard. Plenty of room for ads.

Re:...One revenue of Money maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831763)

On mobile tumblr clients, they do just this. Though the results are often surprisingly targeted based on what I've been reblogging. >_>

Re:Monitization Guess (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43830683)

It seems to me more that they do want to sell ads on Tumblr but then indeed highly targeted ads. Not targeting the person, but the content of the page they're reading.

Why try to profile users, and guess what their interests may be, when you can also have the user themselves select what they indeed find intersting, and target those intersts? A user may be interested in one thing now, and in another thing later. They may be interested in something now that they were not before - and very likely to want to buy stuff related to the new, fresh interest - which is something the user profiling likely misses.

E.g. user is not much of a driver. Doesn't care about cars. But gets a job that has him drive around a lot, and now he's looking for a tomtom. He visits web sites writing about satnav, looking for info about how it works, how much it costs, where the good deals are. That's a great reader for tomtom to advertise to - but if the user's profiling says "it's a headbanger" and all he gets is advertisments for heavy metal bands based on his profile, the ads are useless. In that way user profiling may very well work against the advertiser, as the wrong ad is show to the wrong user. Now if this user would be shown a tomtom ad (even if it's totally against the personal profile), there is a much better chance he'd click on it.

Keeping ads relevant is the key to the game. Google is the only site I have adblock disabled, because their ads are relevant. Not targeting some "personal profile" Google has of me, but targeting what I am searchng for there and then. And relevant advertising can be quite useful at times.

It's called multipliers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827653)

People who can get other people to listen to them (or to read, whatever) are called multipliers, because if you can convince or persuade one of them, they convince or persuade many for you. That's why "content is king". You don't get to the masses without the few people that the masses look up to. Of course you want to have the writers who write what is worthwhile to read. Pretty much by definition that can't be any service with millions of users.

Sure it's the content (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827675)

free pornography

so am i a reader or a writer? (5, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827681)

im trying to figure out which color of star i should have to sew onto my sleeve when they come around asking for my papers.

Re: so am i a reader or a writer? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827851)

Purple, for the royal faggot that you are.

Maybe its about class (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827883)

im trying to figure out which color of star i should have to sew onto my sleeve when they come around asking for my papers.

I keep thinking this seems to be another divide between (what used to be) Middle and working class. Whatever you call those two groups nowadays.

Re:Maybe its about class (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828275)

There was a peculiar "creative class [wikipedia.org] " hypothesis kicking around a few years ago that was essentially a catch-all term for educated people. Maybe the term could be repurposed to describe low-income arts students and graduates coping with debt: accustomed to a higher standard of living, yet technically hovering around the poverty line. Surely this aligns well with the presented image of the penniless Tumblr content producer.

Re:Maybe its about class (1)

Aaron B Lingwood (1288412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43829063)

Undoing bad mod. Please mod Insightful.

Re:Maybe its about class (1)

freezin fat guy (713417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832599)

I'm sure illiterate people have even more money.

Re:Maybe its about class (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830707)

I like the Japanese definition of working class; If you have a salary you do not work for yourself and you are therefor working class. :-)

Re:so am i a reader or a writer? (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827953)

Easy - a creator has more followers than they are following. A reader has the reverse.

Re:so am i a reader or a writer? (2)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828413)

Well, you're posting so you're definitely a writer, ergo no money lots of time. However, you're posting in response to something, so you must have read it so you're a reader, so lotsa money and no time. However, you're posting in response tosomething on slashdot, so if you follow the norm (for slashdot) you did not RTFA so you're definitely not a reader, so less money and more time?

As to which color of star to ask, I do not think our badge system defines that as of yet. Please speak to the gamification Tzar and I'm sure they'll get right on it. You could also use D&D to decide:

a - roll a 20-sided die three times to select a HUE

b - roll a six-sided die once to select SATURATION

c - roll a 10-sideed die to select the number of points on the star

d - roll any die and use odd/even to select whether to cut and sew the star yourself or outsource it to chinese manufacturers...

Re:so am i a reader or a writer? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year and a half ago | (#43830113)

you're definitely not a reader, so less money and more time?

I'm still wondering... What is the label for we that have neither?

Price vs. Revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827683)

The acquisition is priced at over $1billion. Max annual revenue for Tumblr is $13million projected to be $100million this year(high hopes that are highly unlikely, I predict $20million).

Yahoo! is paying through the nose for a highly unprofitable company with no hope of ever generating a ROI.

This acquisition is massive folly!

Re:Price vs. Revenue (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827941)

The acquisition is priced at over $1billion. Max annual revenue for Tumblr is $13million projected to be $100million this year(high hopes that are highly unlikely, I predict $20million).

Yahoo! is paying through the nose for a highly unprofitable company with no hope of ever generating a ROI.

This acquisition is massive folly!

yeah. 1 billion would have been a massive overvaluation EVEN IF it had been doing 10 million of profit. which it certainly wasn't.

topical blogs.. well doh. like "hot asian women", "hot bikini women" etc. categories are surely worth a lot to advertisers.. this guy just doesn't sound that smart. sure we know that it's a popular web service.

so was geocities. was geocities worth 3 billion dollars? HELL NO. and they had topic oriented readers and blogs as well. tumblr is just geocities for 2010's. good thing is that the sites don't hit transfer limits as easily.

Re:Price vs. Revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828133)

Big difference: GeoCities was a 100% stock deal. Since Yahoo's stock went up after the purchase, it essentially cost them nothing, and they got a tons revenue from expensive 1990s banner ads.

On the other hand, Tumblr was a billion in cold hard cash, and it will be very difficult to monitize the traffic. (especially since, as you mention, a lot of it is copyright-violating porn and other pics.)

Fag packet figures (3, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828035)

The acquisition is priced at over $1billion. Max annual revenue for Tumblr is $13million projected to be $100million this year(high hopes that are highly unlikely, I predict $20million).

Yahoo! is paying through the nose for a highly unprofitable company with no hope of ever generating a ROI.

This acquisition is massive folly!

I am sick of this back of a fag packet figure being banged around. In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion(the largest at the time). Its argued today its worth http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/03/google-inc-goog-youtube/ [valuewalk.com] $45.7 Billion Ironically in the context of this article Google outbid Yahoo. In terms of numbers http://allthingsd.com/20100319/the-numbers-behind-the-worlds-fastest-growing-web-site-youtubes-finances-revealed/ [allthingsd.com] youtube revenue for the year before the sale to Google was $15,057 (whole making losses of hundreds of thousands each month)

I have no idea whether this is a good deal. But these figures are not of relevance.

Stop cutting a pasting from other sites and think for yourself (registering would be a good start too)

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831069)

Yahoo paid about the same money for GeoCities. How did that work out?

Re:Price vs. Revenue (3, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43829449)

But if fits the new internet model of how you make money. Put in a few thousand hours developing (and promoting) an application that a large number of people find marginally interesting -- enough that you have a huge number of page hits. Then sell to one of the majors at a vastly inflated price, so your 10,000 hours or so of work is rewarded with a billion dollars.

Net pay rate if you succeed, $100,000 an hour.

Net pay rate if you don't succeed: $0/hour.

Who gets the big payoff is a total crap shoot. It's like winning the lottery, only the stakes are bigger. Who loses? The suckers you get to buy you out.

And it all goes to prove something I've been saying for years: Hard work and prudent investments will never make you rich. What will make you rich if finding a way to get paid for what other people are doing.

Re:Price vs. Revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43832713)

Hard work and prudent investments will never make you rich

It worked for me.

aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (3, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827719)

readers are far more important than writers

- the "consumption economy" nonsense strikes again.

In this case production is writing and reading is consumption. If the readers are not exchanging anything of their own for the content they consume, then the writers (producers) aren't getting anything from that trade.

Rifkin is wrong about more than that, both, the readers and the writers are products on these sites, their information is collected and exchanged, the customers are the businesses that pay for the information.

Has ANY reader on tumbler actually paid for anything TO tumbler? I doubt it. Just like no writer on FB paid for anything there.

What Rifkin is confused is the reason as to why it is even possible to find investors into such business models in the first place, the reasons are not obvious at the first glance, because you have to step back and take a look at the bigger economy around. The bigger economy is massively lacking savings and investments and the business climate is destroyed. This is NOT an economy of readers, this is not even an economy of writers, this is an economy entirely based on fake money.

The banks, the hedge funds are able to borrow fake money created by the Federal reserve at fake interest rates and they have no incentive to use that money for any productive business that will NOT generate 50 or 100 times the original investment back. So every attempt at a new social site is just a gamble.

This market in social media development is just like the larger bond and stock markets (and other fake loan markets, like the student loan market). This is all about cheap money and lack of real business opportunities, complete lack of real savers of-course, so the only people that are still making money are those, who have access to cheap money provided by the Fed basically (through whatever intermediaries).

This is a fake economy, those readers and writers BOTH have no money but what the fake economy is able to borrow or just steal from the dollar asset holders around the world via inflation (money printing).

This is a fake money, gambler based economy and it is the most unstable type of economy you can imagine and it has 0 chances of growing an actual productive economy until this fake economy implodes.

Re:aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827855)

so is the futures market. But people seem to make money off it. Of course there are losers too, but the point is, it is possible to make money; or rip someone off, depending on your point of view.

Re:aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827887)

And we should trust the musings of a dumbass Bohunk who hacks together a shitty POS system (that he won't reveal the name of because it's so shit) because ...?

Re:aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (2)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828229)

If the readers are not exchanging anything of their own for the content they consume, then the writers (producers) aren't getting anything from that trade.

Unless the writers want people to read their stuff. Then that's what they get.

Re:aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830535)

You lost me at the Federal Reserve. WTF does that have to do with this article?

Re:aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43830653)

Nice rambling and it shows you didn't even read TFS (or lack comprehension).

Readers are not supposed to start giving money to Tumblr. Advertisers are who bring in the money.

The idea: some writer writes about some great album he just listened to. Reader reads it, thinks "that's cool, I want to listen to it, too". Advertiser pays tumblr to place ad at this article advertising said album, hoping that reader clicks the ad and buys the album from advertiser. Targeted advertising - back to targeting interests more than people.

So in the end everyone wins. Tumblr can stay online serving their users. Owners of Tumblr make money. Reader is happy because they have that new album they like, and they got it easily. Album vendor is happy because they made a sale. Evereyone happy - and if they do it properly, there is even no need for Facebook-style privacy invasion.

Weighing in (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827733)

is who? Somebody who I've never once heard of, but paid slashdot to run his shitty adverstory? This website is a shallow husk of what it used to be.

That is not weighing in (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827871)

is a shallow husk of what it used to be.

Ironically, I remember when AC had the better comments, as they were used to to protect the individual. Now its just spam.

Now it's just spam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827931)

Man: You sit here, dear.
Wife: All right.
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...
Waitress: ...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...
Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
Wife: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like spam!
Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.
Wife: I don't like spam!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.
Man: Well could I have her spam instead of the baked beans then?
Waitress: You mean spam spam spam spam spam spam... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)
Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam!
.

Re:That is not weighing in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831195)

I remember when AC had the better comments, as they were used to to protect the individual.

No, no you don't.

Now its just spam.

Go read the old stories and note how many posts are GNAA garbage.

Too much time spending to create content (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827763)

The premise of this whole article to justify yahoo buying a Picture only wikipedia(or animated gif porn cloud collections to some) for to sell advertising on...now its become trapped as Microsoft's Gimp (yes another one...Nokia is still wearing the mask for a Billion pay off every so often).

...the idea that this has become wise (ignoring the bullshit words around this) is the social media is full of poor people, While people with disposable income spend times looking at pictures of kittens(or amputee porn, cars...) hobbies. Ignoring the fact that this is just one of many (popular)picture sites set up like Instagram by faceook, Photo sharing built into Microsoft Skydrive(they have even bought Webfives), or that Google has Picassa Web albums...or how they have basically added another 41 features to Google+ all about pictures(including sticking together pictures into panoramas , auto-tagging and auto-generated animated gifs). They already acquired flickr in 2005!!

I wrote loads but changes my mond...the reality is there are not two groups. There is no rich reader vs poor writer, there may well be a measurable difference in balance of these activities between both groups ...but precious time in question means they are simply doing each activity less...rather than focusing on a hobby sites over a person interaction sites. because hobbies are something you only do if your rich with no time...and they are not as friendly as the poor people without hobbies.

The bottom line here is there is one Yahoo story...and its the elephant in the room. Lets talk about Bitch Yahoo digging itself out from Microsoft's Heels.

So, we built an internet, the great infrastructure (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827801)

"We" as in "my generation": the engineers who are now 35 to 50. And this is what the place has become: a mostly commercialized place, a shopping mall peddling boredom against boredom. Where does this urge to vomit come from ?

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (1)

geek (5680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827827)

The internet has become the new "idiot box" as my grandparents used to call Television. It's not all bad news though for those of us who choose to use it well. Between Google, WolframAlpha and Wikipedia we have, at our finger tips, the greatest accumulation of knowledge humankind has ever known. Using it well can and will make the difference between an idiot and a resourceful, intelligent human being.

Idiot box (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827895)

The internet has become the new "idiot box"...Using it well can and will make the difference between an idiot and a resourceful, intelligent human being.

So nothing like an idiot box then.

Re:Idiot box (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827995)

Correct - for the 0.001% who can use it wisely.

Paradoxically, sometimes using it wisely means not using it.

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43827885)

"We" as in "my generation": the engineers who are now 35 to 50.

Sorry pal. The TCP/IP protocol stack, sockets API, and LAN technologies were developed in the '70s and early '80s. Tim Berners-Lee (present age 57) and Robert Cailliau (age 67) invented the WWW in the late '80s, partly based on SGML which was invented by IBM in the '60s. Relational databases the theory of optimization and transactions also came out of IBM in the '70s, with client/server computing added by engineers at Sybase Corp. in the '80s. I could go on but I don't have half an hour to burn.

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43829555)

Huh? Did he say they had invented TCP/IP or ethernet? Civil engineers in the 1950s didn't invent CONCRETE either. But they built the interstate highway system.

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830033)

Wow, this is getting into Al Gore territory. Maybe you can explain exactly what was invented by (present day) 35-to-50 year olds that gives them title to creators of the Internet?

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43830923)

Soft skills - this is the generation that built massive companies based on thin air, that get sold for a billion dollars!

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831139)

They didn't invent it. They built it. Think of them as the road construction workers of Internets.

Often the ones that actually invent something aren't the ones that build it or make it popular or whatever, doesn't make them any less or more "creators" than the other people involved in the process. If nobody ever used TCP/IP or whatever invention in everyday use nobody would know who the inventor was.

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43832347)

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. You'd think people would know that by now...

Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (4, Interesting)

godrik (1287354) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827907)

Every great infrastructure ends up being used massively for stupid reason. 90% of postal mail I receive is spam, but 10% is important. (YMMV). The same goes with internet.

Drop the social network crap and funny cat pictures, and you will find again what you are looking for in the internet: a large base of knowledge and communication between people. My four most visited website are: slashdot, jeuxvideo.com (a french video game website), wikipedia and arxiv. And personnaly, I feel just fine about the internet.

Time but no money? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827937)

Why not both? I'm sure a majority of people who post on /. have both time and money.

Re:Time but no money? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828991)

Why not both? I'm sure a majority of people who post on /. have both time and money.

You must be new here. It's been made painfully obvious time and again that the writers can't read and the readers can't write.
Do you think the editors read these comments? Did you RTFA? That's what I thought.

The adjective may or may not be misplaced (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43827993)

It's the stupid content readers.

FTFY

Never looked at Tublr until now (1)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828073)

Yeah, sorry, got completely turned off to social media by Facebook until I read this post. Glad someone made a site focused on information and not the monetization of user's information.

I loathe Facebook to my very core.

Tumbler is popular because it has tons of free por (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828079)

Tumbler is popular because it has tons of free porn. I suspect that will end not because Yahoo is against porn thats far from the truth they allow porn on Flickr IF you make sure its marked properly. Thats not the case with Tumblr and they dont allow its member to report violations. Dont like the content? leave pretty much

I found just the oppsite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828119)

when I wrote for a tech site I worked a day job came home and spent most of the evening writing. Therefore I was getting multiple checks and jack shit time. The readers however always seemed to be juvenile asshat trolls who would argue endlessly about the most moot points, assuming they had nothing better to do with their time.

Insightful article? (1)

Georules (655379) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828223)

The article makes the assumption that we didn't understand this already. I find it impressive that a website has figured out how to be a porn site that people are comfortable looking at wherever they are in public, at any time.

Exploitation is the key to success on the web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43828419)

Is this article trying to say that exploiting people who will generate content either for free or for peanuts is the key to success? Arbitrage the work of students, moms, etc who are trying to get a few pennies for their work to get large amounts of advertising/traffic redirecting dollars, and pocket the difference? What I don't get is why people generate content for free at corporate sites. If you're going to do it, make a personal web site.

Ah, that reminds me again... (1)

knarf (34928) | about a year and a half ago | (#43828945)

Those words remind me again why I stay away from all these made-up-word-lacking-a-vowel services and host my own stuff on my own server. I'm not a target. Just a hacker willing to share, but on my own terms.

Maybe I should call it Servr to at least give it a semblance of social startup coolness...

OMG, we get it, Yahoo is desperate for attention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43829991)

At one time, Yahoo was valuable. Now, it's just an utter waste of time. Their search sucks. Their news is pathetic and useless. Yahoo mail has completely gone to shit. It's just one clusterfuck after another with those idiots. Why are we still talking about them? Oh, right. Because Microsoft is desperate to compete with Google. Yeah. Good luck with that.

umm... (1)

dotar (1400363) | about a year and a half ago | (#43830161)

"readers are far more important than writers"... Who the fuck does he thinks generates site's content???
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?