So what happened to Encyclopedia Dramatica?

[WindupAtheist]

And what is this Oh Internet bullshit?

[MahrinSkel]

Somebody decided it was time to make some real money off all you dorks?  At least now I might be able to follow links there without triple-bagging my computer (Chrome inside of Sandboxie on a virtual machine).

--Dave

[WindupAtheist]

real money

Yeah that's gonna happen.

[Mrbloodworth]

Like like a new skin is all.

[K9]

People care about ED?

[Rasix]

People care about ED?

[WayAbvPar]

People care about ED?

Soon our entire economy will be driven by ED solutions.

[Nebu]

Soon our entire economy will be driven by ED solutions.

If you work in/around medicine like I do, that is a very funny (and true) statement. 

[Lantyssa]

Will we be screwed at that point?

[Minvaren]

Soon our entire economy will be driven by ED solutions.

If you work in/around medicine like I do, that is a very funny (and true) statement.  

"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes that genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources were focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections." - Idiocracy

[TripleDES]

Like like a new skin is all.

And a swear/content filter.

[WindupAtheist]

And a swear/content filter.

Thus removing the entire point.

[FatuousTwat]

And nothing of value was lost.

[WindupAtheist]

Oh the "ED under a different name" wiki went up within like 48 hours, as it turned out, and seems to be coming along. I just wonder who the hell the market for Oh Internet is supposed to be.

[Sand]

Who was the market for ED? tweens?

[Samwise]

Who was the market for ED? tweens?

I thought we covered this.

[WindupAtheist]

Who was the market for ED? tweens?

Trolls. I browse through the image sections looking for trolling material. The pro boxing forum I hang out on has an off-topic section that's basically American tea party dipshits, English soccer hooligans, and angry black guys all flipping shit on each other with an almost total lack of moderation. It takes something more than saying you thought Revenge of the Sith was pretty good to make an impact over there.

There's this guy, he's in his sixties or thereabouts, all he does is post these near-identical and barely comprehensible rants about Obama's birth certificate and "liberal quisling traitors" and stuff like that. I've made him look at so much appalling hentai. He gets really fucking mad too, and shrieks about "Democrat party socialists" trying to bring him down. It's fucking great.

[Pennilenko]

Revenge of the Sith was an abomination...

[Fabricated]

Remember that the lolcats page thing got millions in venture capital and just got MORE venture capital recently.

[Strazos]

VC...to do WHAT, exactly?

[Sand]

Rip off more VC idiots and generate revenue through pop-up and click through ads, it would seem.
Because according to the idiot VC's that bought in "the company is poised to become the world's largest humor network."   

LOLcats website nabs $30M in venture capital for Cheezburger Network
BY REUTERS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Websites like I Can Has Cheezburger, Fail Blog and The Daily What may seem frivolous, but they've just attracted $30 million in venture funding for Cheezburger Network, the company that owns them.

Cheezburger's flagship site was founded in 2007 as a place for users to post "LOLcats" - pictures of cats with funny text. Chief executive Ben Huh and his initial investors purchased the I Can Has Cheezburger site (icanhascheezburger.com) and founded the Cheezburger company (cheezburger.com) in September of that year. The Seattle-based startup has been profitable since them and it now attracts 16.5 million monthly visitors adding up to 375 million pageviews and 110 million video views.

Still, Huh said that without substantial funding, the company has had to think relatively small. The new money will allow Cheezburger to experiment and take more risks, he said.

Huh didn't rule out that he may launch or buy more sites (he offered to buy popular news aggregator Reddit last year) but added he's more interested in hiring engineers to improve the existing sites. For example, he said it's time to upgrade the LOLcat image-building tool on I Can Has Cheezburger, because it hasn't been improved in more than a year.

CEO:

[Strazos]

Hmm...I've always been curious as to how companies can justify continuing to dump money like this simply due to pageviews and such.

I mean, most of the ads I see are either terrible or not pertinent to me. How often are you guys actually clicking  on this stuff?

[MuffinMan]

Maybe they're displaying subliminal ads. Buy a trampoline.

[Lantyssa]

I mean, most of the ads I see are either terrible or not pertinent to me. How often are you guys actually clicking  on this stuff?

We're computer savvy.  Now imagine your parents getting a link to the site, browsing it for a bit, then seeing an add for something that catches their eye...

[Sand]

Its a dead/dying business model. Just ask Apple. One of the savviest consumer products currently on the market, with a marketing budget just north of $500 million a year presently. Then ask them, a company strongly tied to internet using web savvy consumers, how much of that money they spend on internet based advertising. Very little. 90%+ of that budget goes to traditional media (print and TV) still.
Internet ad and click through rates peaked in 2003 (IIRC) and have been in decline rapidly ever since.

Any VC or company thinking they are going to buck that trend are morons or simply have more money than sense.

[Merusk]

TBH I'm continually amazed that nobody makes a connection between low click-thorugh rates and traditional advertising.  You pay a premium for print and TV but your follow through % can't be much better than web ads.

[Trippy]

Its a dead/dying business model.

Google would disagree with you.

[Paelos]

Its a dead/dying business model.

Google would disagree with you.

I always confuse Google and Lolcats.

[Ratman_tf]

Its a dead/dying business model.

Google would disagree with you.

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/social-medias-massive-failure.html

[Trippy]

Its a dead/dying business model.

Google would disagree with you.

I always confuse Google and Lolcats.

There are very few questions in life that can not be answered by LOLCats.

[Fordel]

TBH I'm continually amazed that nobody makes a connection between low click-thorugh rates and traditional advertising.  You pay a premium for print and TV but your follow through % can't be much better than web ads.

Well isn't that one of the reasons why newspapers went to shit, that companies actually did see how terrible click-through's were and went "isn't this just what we've been paying for in papers for decades?"

[UnSub]

Its a dead/dying business model.

Google would disagree with you.

Banner ads on the internet are pretty much done, which is all I can see the Cheezburger Network offering. However, they managed to find VCs straight out of the year 2000, where having a lot of pageviews obviously meant that monetarisation of those pageviews was the next obvious step.

Google earns something like 97% of its revenue from AdWords, which is a whole different thing. Google is the world's biggest advertising organisation, last I checked.

[Merusk]

TBH I'm continually amazed that nobody makes a connection between low click-thorugh rates and traditional advertising.  You pay a premium for print and TV but your follow through % can't be much better than web ads.

Well isn't that one of the reasons why newspapers went to shit, that companies actually did see how terrible click-through's were and went "isn't this just what we've been paying for in papers for decades?"

If it is, it's never been covered in anything I've read on newspaper's decline and fall.  It's always been attributed to the speed and convienance of internet reporting that's able to go to the same depth and generational differences between those who read newspapers and those who know the 'net.   The fall of ad revenues was linked to the fall of circulation, not a realization that nobody actually read a paper ad and said "well shit, I've got to have that now."

[Typhon]

I thought journalism was in trouble because you can Google anything (see our Ad Words!) and read essentially that same blurb for free.

Was the writing better on the paid site/newspaper/magazine?  Generally, yes. 
Do 99% of the populace care if the writing is better but the 'facts' are the same and it's free?  No. 
Does the paid author drag what could be said in two sentences out to 5 paragraphs because the editor needed filler?  Yes.

[Yegolev]

Newspapers failed because, for example, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a one-voiced outlet for shit, wrapped in fifty fliers for local restaurants.  Why would I pay a sub to have advertising delivered to my house?