Interesting time line from socialmediagraphics:

>

click for bigger version

Category: Digital Media, Financial Press, Web/Tech

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

9 Responses to “Online Publishing: Big vs Small”

  1. globaleyes says:

    The media fishbowl remains murky and dark.

    It’s not just Big vs small,

    It’s Big vs small vs micro.

    There, I said it.

    (wink)

  2. dead hobo says:

    I just reviewed the big ginormous chart.

    It was easily the most fucking unintelligible waste of effort I have seen in a long time.

    Thanks for sharing.

  3. Marc P says:

    I’ll second that motion. Pretty, but I have no idea what it means.

    “Traffic Rank Trend” — Is this a rank or a trend? How can it be both? Or is it a ranking of the trend? Wouldn’t a trend be a line or bar graph as measured over time? And what does the trend measure? Page views, unique visitors, length of time on the site? The chart is meaningless.

    “Daily Reach (Percent)” — Percent of what? Percent of reach? What’s “reach”? Lessee, I wear a 32″ shirtsleeve, so the BBC has 2.19% of my reach, or the editor’s reach…

  4. Chad says:

    There is a thing called Google. Maybe take 3 minutes and do some work for yourselves instead of expecting it to be spoon fed to ya.

  5. Jack says:

    Now Chad, what, exactly does that mean?

  6. dcsos says:

    If TECH CRUNCH has more traffic than the NEW YORK TIMES, its people complaining about that chart!

  7. Marc P says:

    Hey Chad:

    I work for a living. I DO expect it to be spoon-fed to me. If we all had time to read the original data and do the analysis ourselves, then what would be the point of all these things we call newspapers and magazines?

    TechCrunch can be a good source sometimes, but other times they are so in a hurry to report that they forget that quality is more important than speed. Gawker, Gizmodo are even worse in that regard.

  8. Low Budget Dave says:

    So for every 1.2 people visiting the New york Times and clicking on 89 pages, there are 0.2 people visiting Gawker and clicking on 750 pages?

    Is there a button I can click that says “I don’t believe you”?

  9. Chad says:

    @Marc P

    So, your entire viewpoint and opinion is spoon fed to you by newspapers and magazines? Guess you make a lot of bad decisions in your life since you don’t think for yourself.