[Sir_Substance]

>You will still not make any revenue unless your audience is interested in content that is shallow, vapid and limited in scope.

That's total garbage. Correct game theory when making monetized content for profit is to have it spread as widely as possible. Whether it's good quality or even factually correct is vastly less important than that it be spread widely, quickly.

The goal is not to get people to read the content, it's to park a piece of advertising in front of their face that they are willing to click on. The job of deciding which advertising they will click on is dealt with by the content network. The authors job is to get eyeballs on a page they can affix ads to. Vapidness is great, because it's cheap and non threatening, and to demonstrate this principal, I present to you buzzfeed, vice and wired:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ http://www.vice.com/en_se http://www.wired.com/

(I don't even need to take static shots of them, they'll be covered in shallow garbage any time of day or night)

[ksk]

You have a curious way to call my point "garbage" and then proceed to agree with me. You must have parsed it in some odd manner.

[Sir_Substance]

I guess I thought you were saying that if an audience wasn't into that sort of thing, the site that originally attracted them wouldn't want to alienate them by dropping the quality pieces. But it doesn't really matter what a sites audience is interested in, if the site is hopping on the ad train they'll want to move to shallow and vapid as rapidly as possible. Certainly that's what happened to wired (and time).