|
|
|
|
|
|
by strict9
3349 days ago
|
|
|
I don't disagree with the type of local content (crime, politics, sports) you describe. But that's only a small part of what people are interested in. Though the writing is sometimes sensationalist and click-baity, DNAinfo is eating the Trib's lunch for local engaging content. The number of links to DNA in my fb or twitter feed vastly outnumber Trib ones because friends share/click articles about their city or neighborhood -- that go well beyond only the crime/politics/sports staples. You're right in that I did miss the point of the article, but not entirely. The fb engagement on what the Trib seems to cover (national/international focus) has likely decreased because of Trump, while resulting in more clicks on WaPo/NYT. While it's likely fb changed their algorithm, content also makes a big difference in what gets surfaced. And I think the original article ignored the role that it may have played. It sucks that journalism and livelihoods can suffer because of a monolithic walled garden, but there is probably more to the story. |
|
|
I'm not here to whine. The news business is what it is. We rely on outside sources to drive our traffic. Traffic means eyeballs which translates into ad revenue, hopefully anyway.
When google changes its algorithm that might hurt our web traffic we have to respond accordingly. SEO people have all kinds of discussions, and write articles, when google makes a change. This article is something similar.
It seems like facebook has been changing their algorithm determining what appears in a user's feed, which is effecting our traffic. The same efforts we put in 6 months ago using facebook are having diminishing returns. The point of the article is its effecting us, and apparently not just us.
Whether facebook will address this issue, either in public or private remains to be seen. However I see there is an advantage of talking about it publicly, to determine if it is just us (it's not) or if its affecting others (apparently it is) and what can be done to remedy the situation.
On a side note I like DNAinfo as their content is hyperlocal. It's probably harder for the Chicago Tribune to do that.