If you gave me one of the "100 Successful Blogs" without framing it as a "successful blog", I would not say "this is a successful blog". The 5 or so I looked at all seemed very similar, like they were part of an MLM scheme, and had uninteresting content. I did not recognize a single one of the 100.
If you imagine Google's job is to present useful information, these blogs that are maximizing cash while simulating usefulness are exactly the sorts of things I would hope Google to want to filter out.
(I don't think Google's often capricious ranking changes really succeed at this, but the outcomes in this post seems like something hypothetically good?)
This whole thing is a pretty fascinating insight into a whole other corner of the internet ecosystem:
> For more than a decade, one of the most rewarding blueprints for making money online was to “start a blog."
Then:
> These hundred authority sites and blogs were chosen back in 2022 as they appeared in “bloggers who make six figures” roundups that the entire creator economy circulated as evidence that the model was real and profitable. [...] If you tried to start a blog between roughly 2015 and 2022, most probably you read blog income reports as they were the proof of concept and held up to a generation of aspiring small publishers as this is what winning looks like, and you can do it too.
It's the blog/SEO equivalent of today's TikTok influencer culture.
There was a pretty small slice of bloggers like Michael Arrington who really put in a lot of time and created a brand/company that did pretty well off blogging (for a time). But blogging then and now is pretty much a side-gig for a lot of people that doesn't bring in much money. Which is fine. But social media, which has itself contracted, has cut into a lot of that.
I did start a blog in that time period and this is the first time I've ever heard of this. (Admittedly, I wasn't trying to directly make a living off of it.)
> These hundred authority sites and blogs were chosen back in 2022 as they appeared in “bloggers who make six figures” roundups that the entire creator economy circulated as evidence that the model was real and profitable
Was the claim really that the model was profitable on the basis that they managed to find a whole 100 individuals who were making the income of an entry-level software engineer? That's... not a ringing endorsement for the income potential
This comes off as pretty out of touch. Entry-level SE roles have been a bit rocky since about that time and of course fell off a cliff a year later, but more relevantly, that wasn’t simply career advice directed at people who already know how to code.
100k is a decent compensation level to be able to earn just by being interesting and writing. A lot of teachers make less than that despite the education needed.
A majority of people who don’t have specific relevant degrees or specific great talents will never make that much (inflation adjusted).
My contention is not that 100k is low (it's a pretty great salary in most places). It's that 100 people total is a tiny number, and it's not like 100k is getting rich money - if only 100 people are earning that much, how little are the rest of them earning?
Fair, the flavor certainly changes if you suspect that it is close to the whole list of such bloggers, and it would seem kind of like lottery winners. I think it was likely meant to be understood as a small sample out of a much larger group of people.
I think you could argue that this is following the same trend as forums (and usenet before that). You get a consolidation of where people go to read up on things that interest them.
Look at Slashdot for example, it was once so popular that any site it linked to could be "slashdotted" from all the traffic. Now people go elsewhere. YouTube, TikTok, Reddit.
What happened to Slashdot wasn't a "consolidation", though, it was a suicide. I was a heavy reader of the site up until they had an infamous redesign that made the site literally unusable for me, so I left.
That's very different from the scenario discussed in the article.
I don't think that was it. Slashdot would only run stories from their 'content partners' like ZDNet and the Register, so they were always 2 days behind Reddit/HN/Twitter/etc.
(When RMS was 'cancelled', that would have been a huge deal there in the old days, they had one post days later.)
Also Digg wasn't just a graphical redesign, they changed how the site worked. I don't think Slashdot ever did that.
RMS wasn't "cancelled" (a reminder that "canceling" and "canceled" is a snarl word.)
His decades of incredibly shitty behavior came to be more public knowledge as both men and women in CS realized the behavior they'd witnessed wasn't some outlier once a few women who were well-known came forward and disclosed his behavior.
What brought it all to bear was him repeatedly, on a technical mailing lists, defending sex with underage girls, which in turn led people to actually go looking through material on his own site where he pontificated that sex with anyone over 14 should be legal, or even younger. These are his exact own words:
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)"
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Add onto that decades of stories of creepy, manipulating, harassing behavior toward girls/women as well as incredibly sexist comments about women's technical abilities...among a lot of other really anti-social behavior, like an apparent refusal to bathe...while expecting anyone who hosts him to read a 40 page long missive about exactly how treat him.
I had the same blog post get on HN and on Slashdot. HN link didn't get to the front page, got about 25 human visits. The link on Slashdot got the blog post 2500 visits, plus the Slashdot IP addresses visited tons of other posts and content on my web site. Maybe places don't get "slashdotted" any more, but a link on Slashdot seemingly gets you a ton more visits than a link on HN.
Also, Slashdot visitors use more MacOS and Linux than Windows. The reverse is true of the small number of HN visitors.
the monetization is what killed blogs. great blogs still exist, but they’re almost entirely people writing about whatever their passion is, because they’re passionate. it’s as old as time, my dad uses the term “sellouts” when he’s contrasting terrible bands with good bands from his era. skateboarders call them kooks. same thing only with blogs, sellouts.
find the people who are writing blogs out of passion, not the idiot bloggers writing seo spam.
Blogging as medium is thriving despite AI and LLMs. It has moved to Substack + Twitter and newsletters, and away from Google and Facebook as a source of traffic generation. Many people are easily making 6 figures on Substack now, and also combined with Twitter monetization. This didn't exist 5 years ago.
There are way more blogs now compared to 2013, and much longer and technically proficient writing compared to the terse blog posts that dominated 1-2 decades ago. Even major media sources such as the NY Times The Atlantic are copying the substack contrarian style that is thriving now.
"Easily making six figures on Substack" is doing a lot of work there. But I agree that, if you're seriously looking to make money, Substack is probably a better avenue than having a blog someplace.
I don't know - the 'great enshittification' of Substack seems an inevitable event, for which reason I have stayed away from using it as a platform, except for a few experiments. It was initially populated by refugees from Medium, itself enshittified, and there seems no reason that Substack refugees won't eventually become a thing for the same reason. Reminds me of that Twilight Zone (or was it Night Gallery..?) episode with the guy who keeps moving from one sinking ship to another (Titanic, Lusitania, etc.).
The main reason I used Medium was that, for a period, I had personal tuff in a company newsletter and cross-posted stuff on Medium seemed more official than a personal blog. Haven't used it in years.
I do have a Substack account but have zero interest in monetizing and, after a fair bit of back and forth, I just put all my stuff on a Blogger account I've had for years.
What’s the slash dot of the current era or blogging?
I’m skeptical that it’s out there and robust because I think hn would be the obvious answer and yet it’s not as if small bloggers are dominating the charts here.
I am skeptical that there is any single author where I would be interested in the majority of their output. Perhaps I’m the outlier and other people find authors where they want to consume ~all.
Regardless it seems to me that all of these sole proprietor subscription models are contingent on being generally interested in that person‘s average output whereas the past was faceted meta-aggregation over all producers which I think made it work.
Substack blogging is very different from old-school blogging. The Substack culture puts much more emphasis on writing daily in order to maintain engagement, and to closely target those daily posts to a market that will open its wallets. And not necessarily because that market is being well informed but because it finds cultural validation in the writer's views. The result is that a lot of successful Substack bloggers are essentially repeating the same basic talking points again and again, never saying anything really new or substantial.
Ever talk to a YouTuber who started out hoping to share detailed info on the things they were personally passionate about, but then felt pressure to tailor their stuff to the algorithm and water it down in order to maintain any audience at all? Substack is the same economy.
Mommy bloggers was probably the most ludicrous niche back then. Tons of consumer companies wanted to pay them to promote their product or have a “giveaway”
The era that existed before blogging, wasn't that bad. So nothing to be concerned about. Less stuff to read and comprehend. Recipes, traveling, DIY? They are good, It is not like someone pouring out all their views and thoughts on you.
I find this study a bit weird because it doesn't really establish a baseline. If you look at "top 100" blogs in year n, I imagine that many of them will be dead in year n + 5 simply because people move on. So are we looking at the evidence of blogging going extinct, or just at the natural churn?
Also note that this specifically focuses on monetized, general-interest blogs about stuff like fashion or knitting; a lot of them have moved onto Instagram.
But I think the internet in general is moving away from bespoke, homebrew content. This is very visible even on HN, where the daily line-up contains corporate and university press releases, and newspaper articles, about as often as it contains personal blogs.
> If you look at "top 100" blogs in year n, I imagine that many of them will be dead in year n + 5 simply because people move on.
This is a far more dubious hypothetical. I imagine that the top 100 of anything (that a lot of people do) that brings in income or fame will still be there in 5 years. They're the most successful, most profitable of the bunch. How many of the top 100 companies in terms of revenue do you imagine will disappear in 5 years? I'd guess around 0.0%.
"People move on" is a meaningless statement. Why were there so many colon cancer deaths over the past 5 years? Well, people move on. Why do people move on?
> Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money
i.e. blogging, which once brought in money, doesn't seem to as much anymore. Why?
> I imagine that the top 100 of anything (that a lot of people do) that brings in income or fame will still be there in 5 years.
This sort of blanket assumption is exactly what the parent is arguing against. The mortality rate of top-n things is relatively easy to measure, and should be baselined first. Then we can compare recent performance vs historical performance, and actually say if something has changed. There's no need to start with the assumption "not much changes over 5 years" -- it can be measured instead.
> Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money and dealing with general-interest stuff like fashion or travel. A lot of this has moved onto Instagram and TikTok as a byproduct of people using phones as their primary "content consumption" devices
This needs to be repeated ad nauseum on HN.
For most people (especially those not working in jobs which require heavy amounts of writing, analysis, and reading), text is NOT the default method with which they interact and communicate information.
TikTok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, longer form YouTube content, podcasts, television, etc all feel "easier" for the vast majority of people.
This appears to be true for a plurality, or maybe just barely a majority of people.
I don't find audio so easily multi-tasks, unless we're using different definitions. My example: I find it very difficult to do something described in an audio or video format - rewire a light switch, say. I find it way easier to have text with a diagram. I can stop and check the text at any time. I find it easier to go back to previous sentences, than to rewind an audio or video.
When i say multitask I mean that more literally. If you’re driving you can’t read, if you’re a passenger on public transit audio won’t make you motion sick, if you are cooking or cleaning you can have it on in the background, etc.
Reading requires the full use of your eyes, no way around that.
Fair enough - we have different definitions. If I have audio on while driving or cooking or cleaning, I can only half listen, I miss a lot. I have to be very careful with what I listen to while driving, lest it take my attention away from the road, so I only half agree with you.
One of the nicest things about multitasking audio is that it's easier to concentrate for a long time since I'm busying my body. Else my body thinks it's time to nap.
Alright I'll bite: What are you getting out of skimming through what is widely considered one of the greatest novels of all time? General plot points? That can be accomplished with a readthrough of the SparkNotes.
Well, I might have been too harsh. Listening is better than "skimming". It is actually slower, so you're retaining more.
>greatest novels of all time
I was forced to read it at high school, finished about a quarter, didn't enjoy it a slightest bit, and managed to sabotage the rest of the reading successfully.
Many people told me that the book just wasn't fit for my age and maturity level, so I promised myself to re-read it as an adult. Now I am executing this plan.
I am still not impressed. Of course, the language is much better than what youtubers are speaking in, so listening is more pleasurable, but overall the book is underwhelming.
Dostoyevskiy himself admitted that the book is a merger of two drafts, none of which he managed to complete on its own, and indeed it feels like that.
The first component (which had been called "Drunkards" before the merger) is about the life of alcoholics. I cannot really reflect, since I never drank any alcohol at all. Perhaps it could teach me how to deal with them, but so far the most conclusion I have drawn is just "avoid".
The second component is a so-so detective story. It could have been better, if the protagonist hadn't been clearly mentally unwell. You know, any plot involving insane people is not really worth reading, because admitting that your character is a madman is basically saying "his motivations are not what real people have". Any question of the form "why did he do X", are immediately answered with "because he is a madman". Okay, fine, now what about actually describing real human behaviour?
>That can be accomplished with a read-through of the SparkNotes
No, not really. I can feel it quite well when something like this can be accomplished. Sometimes I start listening to a book, only to find out that listening doesn't work, I _need_ to see the words in order to understand what is going on. This happened more than once, so I am confident that it's not an exception.
Why does it need to be repeated? It is clear enough that the blogging era was a bit of an atypical period, that much is true; but why, on a website called Hacker News, should I need to care about what most people choose to do with their lives? Yes, in reality it’s partly VC News, but the mandate is intellectual curiosity, which most people have had beaten out of them by the time they were fourteen. Some amount of disdain for what most people end up doing by default, for what’s normal, etc., is absolutely instrumental to not having that happen to you.
(For what little it’s worth, and in the spirit of aforementioned curiosity: nausea gives you ad nauseam; with some caveats, a Latin noun in the singular governed by the preposition ad gets the ending -m while retaining the final vowel of its stem.)
> but why, on a website called Hacker News, should I need to care about what most people choose to do with their lives?
Well, when the question is "why did the blogs go away" the answer might be difficult to investigate by only considering a narrow slice of the potential audience for said blogs.
>TikTok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, longer form YouTube content, podcasts, television, etc all feel "easier" and more "natural" for the vast majority of people.
That's not exactly neutral though, but part of a larger theme of regression from literacy to a visual and oral culture (and a dopamine seeking junky one).
The phones part is a red herring here. Phones work fine for reading text.
Video outcompeting text as a mainstream medium for both information and entertainment is as old as television. Youtube would be a more reliable way to make money than a blog in 2026 even if it was primarily consumed on TVs or PCs.
Your post is a red herring, some platforms simply replaced bespoke blogging websites. How would I, without any special services, consume multiple blogs today? It's so much easier with instagram/social media.
It does not require a "service" to consume multiple blogs efficiently, just simply "software" (an app will do).
The below RSS readers pretty much do their job and get out of the user's way. What's amazing is the sheer number of RSS readers that people choose to use; there are so many, people find ones that they personally like.
None of that matters since instagram has more users etc. Jesus, the question is "why blogs disappear" - they disappear because users don't care about the value proposition of your RSS app. Most of them are quite shit anyway - little commonality in terms of styling etc.
The question was "How would I, without any special services, consume multiple blogs today?"
You can do that with RSS.
Now you are saying it doesn't matter because everyone is on Instagram. So you aren't consuming "multiple blogs" in the first place, you're just consuming multiple Instagram accounts.
Keep in mind that nothing stops Instagram from providing RSS feeds for each user account.
You could literally just tell people to stop using Instagram and use Tumblr instead and the problem would solve itself. Tumblr hosts photos, photos albums, and videos, including blogs of several photographers. Tumblr has RSS feeds for each blog. You don't need to have a Tumblr account to follow blogs on Tumblr, you can just put them all into your RSS app and be done. You don't even need a separate RSS app. Vivaldi, a web browser, has an RSS client built-in.
Reddit has RSS feeds. Youtube has RSS feeds. Wordpress has RSS feeds (this is 50% of blogs, essentially). Mastodon has RSS feeds. Bluesky has RSS feeds.
There is nothing that we can do if people deliberately choose to go into a walled garden, but the open gardens still existand you have the full ability to use those instead.
Maybe if more people understood the value proposition of RSS's, they would have more reason to stop using Instagram and move.
> consume multiple blogs today? It's so much easier with instagram/social media
I beg to differ. Follow 12 “people” on Insta and you’re just telling the algorithm you’re into parent stuff, or fashion, or makeup, or cars, or attractive women, or attractive men. It’s not like even 50% of what they serve you will BE those 12 people you followed. Most of what you get will be related to the same niches, but it’ll be from randos and AI instead.
It’s nothing like how simple RSS, Google Reader, or even Flipboard in its original iteration, made it to follow a bunch of specific “creators.”
I think the "randos and AI" is a significant part of the problem. Despite finding what you want (just speaking personally) I like the idea of supporting a creator and knowing that that creator is genuinely interested in the content they're producing. Not to put down someone who is trying to make some money out of it, but a creator who focuses too much on following trends might lose the "micro-niches" that some part of their audience might be interested in following them through.
>I find this study a bit weird because it doesn't really establish a baseline. If you look at "top 100" blogs in year n, I imagine that many of them will be dead in year n + 5 simply because people move on. So are we looking at the evidence of blogging going extinct, or just at the natural churn?
It's still interesting to see that "top 100" hugely succesful blogs can go so much down, even if it's "natural churn".
Then there's the fact that blogs in the "Top 100" are big business (money wise), often established for a decade or more, and have enough subscribers/viewers to spare. So unlikely to just be "dead" in n+5, just declining (which this tracks).
>Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money and dealing with general-interest stuff like fashion or travel. A lot of this has moved onto Instagram and TikTok as a byproduct of people using phones as their primary "content consumption" devices.
So? That's an explanation for the drop. The post tracks the drop itself.
>Ranking number one no longer even guarantees you're the source the AI quotes.
I noticed Google's AI summary seems to link to seemingly obscure videos occasionally.
It Will be interesting to see what happens to YouTube once AI turns it All to text and indexes it. Efficiently viewing YouTube must be at odds with how they want you to keep watching
No mention of Substack? Making money from paying subscribers has different trade-offs than making money from ads, but my read is that mostly traffic moved vs evaporated. But I do expect this to change further with AI, where as the author says, a blog needs to add something new and not just try to answer a question someone might search for.
There's also no discussion of how blogging has always been somewhat frothy: picking the successful blogs (by any metric) and then checking back later is almost guaranteed to show a decrease. A fair comparison would show the top blogs now vs then, or even better the overall landscape (but that's a ton of work).
Blogs will still exist. They will be more difficult to find, just as everything not LLM generated will be more difficult to find, and people will just have to accept that everything they put online will be added to the training data of countless LLMs. But that's already the case and it hasn't stopped people from creating things, including blogs, in spite of LLMs. It may be the case that they mostly wind up on federated platforms or on alt-webs like Gemini. People will still express themselves the way they always have because people want to do that.
Blogs are already dying and basically dont exist outside few platforms favored by search engines.
People are way less likely tondo pointless thing.
> People will still express themselves the way they always have because people want to do that.
People were not always writing blogs. Blogs existed when search engines returned personal long for writings. They were not a thing before and the culture atarted to die after google enshittified engine.
>People were not always writing blogs. Blogs existed when search engines returned personal long for writings. They were not a thing before and the culture atarted to die after google enshittified engine.
People weren't always writing blogs because the term and associated platforms hadn't always existed but people were always writing, often about themselves, and BBSs and personal websites served the purpose that blogs later would online.
Blogs and search engines happened to arrive on the web at almost the same time and evolved in parallel. The vast majority of early blogs were written without any visibility on search engines much less any viewers. It's difficult to imagine in the modern day but people used to do things because they wanted to, not to maximize commercial interest or fame. Search engines helped the popularity of blogs, but weren't the catalyst so much as the existence of services like Blogger and Livejournal. What killed blogs wasn't google but social media. But people kept writing on social media in much the same way that they did on blogs. The medium changed but the desire for self expression didn't. We just call blogs feeds now but it's more or less the same thing.
Millions of people have signed up to receive blog posts by email with Substack. HCR alone has 3M subscribers. While AI replaces "here's common knowledge repackaged" blogs, people still care what the authors they trust think.
Now maybe sometime soon AI replaces that too, but I think by that point we're talking about "automation of the majority of human intellectual labor" and are well beyond blogs in particular.
You sign to blog you know exist from elsewhere. And primary elsewhere was google search.
The fact that now only substack blogs survived is result of the exact process I am talking about - search engine not returning smaller platforms and those blogs dying.
> You sign to blog you know exist from elsewhere. And primary elsewhere was google search.
I'm going to guess that means "the blogs you know, you primarily found from Google searches"?
Most of the substacks I follow are because I encountered the author's thoughts on X or forums like this one. I don't know if anyone else is like that but I'm also not sure why you're generalising, seemingly quite hastily.
Substack, Medium, Tumblr, etc. absorbed a lot of the blogging crowd. And of course we have hordes of people throwing AI slop at each other on Linkedin. Tumblr and Medium are of course a bit past their prime at this point. That's what happens to VC funded companies after they fail to take over the world. Might happen to Substack as well.
Add to that Bluesky, Mastodon, X, Threads, etc. and you have a very fragmented space of people exchanging content at each other.
It's not so much that blogging is dead but that it got overtaken by other platforms that aren't necessarily much better. And the fragmentation hurts distribution. And commercialization, injects a lot of bad incentives into the whole space that rewards people that are mostly just very loud and uninteresting.
A lot of the blogging tools still work fine. It's not that hard to accumulate lists of interesting RSS feeds. Mastodon actually has RSS feeds, BTW. It can double as a blogging platform.
It's just that it all competes for attention and some people are a bit too loud. At this point, the signal to noise ratio is pretty terrible for an unfiltered list of blogs these days. That was fine when people moderated themselves. But now that they don't, it's hard to filter out all the noise. And the commercial algorithms don't help much as they tend to favor click bait rather than substance.
I’m curious why many tech bloggers choose Substack, when it’s almost trivial to set up your own blog with infinitely more style control, and math/syntax-highlighting etc.
Substack handles emailing and payments well. Many people want to receive posts by email, which is a pain to do on your own with high deliverability. Some are willing to pay for it, and payments are similarly annoying (and benefit from a familiar interface, which Substack now provides).
Yes, it was polluted with multiple 'Not just [x] but [y]' examples - the most obvious tell of AI-generated text, among other aggravating examples. It was hard to read, but I was interested enough in the subject to slog through it.
"A straightforward, honest, zealous officer doing his duty in the most laborious manner—that’s my style. No Frills. No fancy work. Just honest perspiration. Stolid and a bit stupid—that‘s my ticket."
Yes, LLMs certainly learned these tropes somewhere. I'm just surprised that different models and different pre-processing methods arrived at the same dominant cliches.
Given the topic of the article, it is deeply ironic that one of the sites whose traffic cratered 99% was "Adam Enfroy teaches how to grow successful blogs with AI". Apparently not.
I say this not just to be snarky (OK, maybe a little bit), but a lot of the content on these blogs was just bad, e.g. hawking get rich quick schemes where the author obviously was giving bad advice.
Understood, I think the ironic part is the adamenfroy.com site appears to have pivoted from "make money with the blog-as-business model" to "scale your business with AI" (whatever that means), i.e. chasing the latest buzzword.
All of these "paid short courses so you can make tons of passive income", which were a sizable number of the blogs on this article's list, are invariably pyramid/grifter scams, whether it's Trump University, "learn Amazon drop shipping", "real estate investing", yada yada. The course proprietor makes a lost more money than any of their clients ever do.
The only place for me to consume information is this place, some reddits and yes my Claude cli. I know you guys thinking. But it's how it is. I don't use any other medium anymore. I am thinking of ditching reddit. The bubble toxicity is too much there.
I know my little crappy blog does not count but I am curious if any others do something similar to me. When interest wanes I take the articles offline, destroy the VM and edit them offline for some period of time until there may be interest and then I put them back up on a different domain so that archive sites become disjointed and disconnected from it to bury my edits of typos and such. This allows my articles to (d)evolve with me as I, the internet platforms, society and other things change.
In the age of AI, interchangeable content farms that earn pennies by filling 80% of the screen with ads are dead. In fact, the user hostility of those "blogs" is what pushes people even further towards AI interfaces that output what matters up top and (for now) without ads.
You know what? I cannot care less if people are not reading blogs anymore. I reactivated my blog because it is a lot of fun to write, a lot of fun to take the time to put down my ideas, try to correctly formulate them, fighting with my crappy English or German (and the loss of my French).
So, you can move on, you can go fully away from the blogosphere (it was a word, 20 years ago), this will not change that I am happy writing my ideas/thoughts down, for me.
I think it is very good and healthy to not care too much about readership numbers, but you seem pretty high on your pedestal here - you still publish it to the public, you still seek an audience. If you’re doing it just for you, then why are you hosting a blog For the world to see? Surely there is some part of you that wants people to read it, otherwise you wouldn’t, right?
Just knowing that people could read my blog is forcing me to take better care of my writing. This is the most important reason. And only my friends and family know the address, it is not indexed :-D
Yes, but this is not the one where I wrote about politics, life and society... still, the writing style is not that different, so, I suppose an AI system would be able to easily associate my crappy personal blog to me (not sure if they are respecting the noindex stuff the way Google does) and build a profile of my personality out of it.
Note: Interestingly, seeing my full name here is not something I expected.
I apologise for this, the real terrifying thing that it took me 1 minute and one shot prompt on Grok to get all this – and a lot more. Just check yourself. We all are heavily royally f...d, my firend. (I found similar level of details about myself too)
Dunno man, sometimes I blog stuff I want to remember (how to do task X or Y, some arcane ffmpeg incantation, recipes, etc) and when I need it, it’s easier to find it in my public blog which is accessible from anywhere, vs. it being a file buried in some computer I have to sit in front of, or somewhere in a shared drive I have to authenticate to, etc.
For some things there is value in them being publicly accessible even if nobody but me cares or uses them.
I have a wiki for that, but I keep reading the Arbiters of the Internet around here claim wikis are even deader than personal blogs, so what do I know. :-)
158 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 33.1 ms ] thread(I don't think Google's often capricious ranking changes really succeed at this, but the outcomes in this post seems like something hypothetically good?)
> For more than a decade, one of the most rewarding blueprints for making money online was to “start a blog."
Then:
> These hundred authority sites and blogs were chosen back in 2022 as they appeared in “bloggers who make six figures” roundups that the entire creator economy circulated as evidence that the model was real and profitable. [...] If you tried to start a blog between roughly 2015 and 2022, most probably you read blog income reports as they were the proof of concept and held up to a generation of aspiring small publishers as this is what winning looks like, and you can do it too.
It's the blog/SEO equivalent of today's TikTok influencer culture.
Traffic for my blog has fluctuated depending on whether or not my site is referenced in the Overview that month for relevant phrases.
Was the claim really that the model was profitable on the basis that they managed to find a whole 100 individuals who were making the income of an entry-level software engineer? That's... not a ringing endorsement for the income potential
100k is a decent compensation level to be able to earn just by being interesting and writing. A lot of teachers make less than that despite the education needed.
A majority of people who don’t have specific relevant degrees or specific great talents will never make that much (inflation adjusted).
Look at Slashdot for example, it was once so popular that any site it linked to could be "slashdotted" from all the traffic. Now people go elsewhere. YouTube, TikTok, Reddit.
That's very different from the scenario discussed in the article.
(When RMS was 'cancelled', that would have been a huge deal there in the old days, they had one post days later.)
Also Digg wasn't just a graphical redesign, they changed how the site worked. I don't think Slashdot ever did that.
His decades of incredibly shitty behavior came to be more public knowledge as both men and women in CS realized the behavior they'd witnessed wasn't some outlier once a few women who were well-known came forward and disclosed his behavior.
What brought it all to bear was him repeatedly, on a technical mailing lists, defending sex with underage girls, which in turn led people to actually go looking through material on his own site where he pontificated that sex with anyone over 14 should be legal, or even younger. These are his exact own words:
"I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)"
"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."
Add onto that decades of stories of creepy, manipulating, harassing behavior toward girls/women as well as incredibly sexist comments about women's technical abilities...among a lot of other really anti-social behavior, like an apparent refusal to bathe...while expecting anyone who hosts him to read a 40 page long missive about exactly how treat him.
Tl;dr: different races have different fertility peak ages.
Also, Slashdot visitors use more MacOS and Linux than Windows. The reverse is true of the small number of HN visitors.
I would date the Great Blogging Collapse to the arrival of this idea, not whatever happened a decade later.
the monetization is what killed blogs. great blogs still exist, but they’re almost entirely people writing about whatever their passion is, because they’re passionate. it’s as old as time, my dad uses the term “sellouts” when he’s contrasting terrible bands with good bands from his era. skateboarders call them kooks. same thing only with blogs, sellouts.
find the people who are writing blogs out of passion, not the idiot bloggers writing seo spam.
There are way more blogs now compared to 2013, and much longer and technically proficient writing compared to the terse blog posts that dominated 1-2 decades ago. Even major media sources such as the NY Times The Atlantic are copying the substack contrarian style that is thriving now.
How many though? I get the impression it's really just a very small subset at the top, with a very long tail making almost nothing.
I do have a Substack account but have zero interest in monetizing and, after a fair bit of back and forth, I just put all my stuff on a Blogger account I've had for years.
I’m skeptical that it’s out there and robust because I think hn would be the obvious answer and yet it’s not as if small bloggers are dominating the charts here.
I am skeptical that there is any single author where I would be interested in the majority of their output. Perhaps I’m the outlier and other people find authors where they want to consume ~all.
Regardless it seems to me that all of these sole proprietor subscription models are contingent on being generally interested in that person‘s average output whereas the past was faceted meta-aggregation over all producers which I think made it work.
Ever talk to a YouTuber who started out hoping to share detailed info on the things they were personally passionate about, but then felt pressure to tailor their stuff to the algorithm and water it down in order to maintain any audience at all? Substack is the same economy.
I can't believe this sentence exists.
Also note that this specifically focuses on monetized, general-interest blogs about stuff like fashion or knitting; a lot of them have moved onto Instagram.
But I think the internet in general is moving away from bespoke, homebrew content. This is very visible even on HN, where the daily line-up contains corporate and university press releases, and newspaper articles, about as often as it contains personal blogs.
This is a far more dubious hypothetical. I imagine that the top 100 of anything (that a lot of people do) that brings in income or fame will still be there in 5 years. They're the most successful, most profitable of the bunch. How many of the top 100 companies in terms of revenue do you imagine will disappear in 5 years? I'd guess around 0.0%.
"People move on" is a meaningless statement. Why were there so many colon cancer deaths over the past 5 years? Well, people move on. Why do people move on?
> Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money
i.e. blogging, which once brought in money, doesn't seem to as much anymore. Why?
This sort of blanket assumption is exactly what the parent is arguing against. The mortality rate of top-n things is relatively easy to measure, and should be baselined first. Then we can compare recent performance vs historical performance, and actually say if something has changed. There's no need to start with the assumption "not much changes over 5 years" -- it can be measured instead.
It's hard to find non-paywalled sources for business analysis, but from what I can find it'd be about 20%.
https://www.exchangecapital.com/blog/why-the-sp-500-isnt-wha...
and accelerating
https://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2020/01/the-pace-of-creative-...
This needs to be repeated ad nauseum on HN.
For most people (especially those not working in jobs which require heavy amounts of writing, analysis, and reading), text is NOT the default method with which they interact and communicate information.
TikTok, IG reels, YouTube shorts, longer form YouTube content, podcasts, television, etc all feel "easier" for the vast majority of people.
I don't find audio so easily multi-tasks, unless we're using different definitions. My example: I find it very difficult to do something described in an audio or video format - rewire a light switch, say. I find it way easier to have text with a diagram. I can stop and check the text at any time. I find it easier to go back to previous sentences, than to rewind an audio or video.
Reading requires the full use of your eyes, no way around that.
Like "crime and punishment".
>greatest novels of all time
I was forced to read it at high school, finished about a quarter, didn't enjoy it a slightest bit, and managed to sabotage the rest of the reading successfully.
Many people told me that the book just wasn't fit for my age and maturity level, so I promised myself to re-read it as an adult. Now I am executing this plan.
I am still not impressed. Of course, the language is much better than what youtubers are speaking in, so listening is more pleasurable, but overall the book is underwhelming.
Dostoyevskiy himself admitted that the book is a merger of two drafts, none of which he managed to complete on its own, and indeed it feels like that.
The first component (which had been called "Drunkards" before the merger) is about the life of alcoholics. I cannot really reflect, since I never drank any alcohol at all. Perhaps it could teach me how to deal with them, but so far the most conclusion I have drawn is just "avoid".
The second component is a so-so detective story. It could have been better, if the protagonist hadn't been clearly mentally unwell. You know, any plot involving insane people is not really worth reading, because admitting that your character is a madman is basically saying "his motivations are not what real people have". Any question of the form "why did he do X", are immediately answered with "because he is a madman". Okay, fine, now what about actually describing real human behaviour?
>That can be accomplished with a read-through of the SparkNotes
No, not really. I can feel it quite well when something like this can be accomplished. Sometimes I start listening to a book, only to find out that listening doesn't work, I _need_ to see the words in order to understand what is going on. This happened more than once, so I am confident that it's not an exception.
(For what little it’s worth, and in the spirit of aforementioned curiosity: nausea gives you ad nauseam; with some caveats, a Latin noun in the singular governed by the preposition ad gets the ending -m while retaining the final vowel of its stem.)
Well, when the question is "why did the blogs go away" the answer might be difficult to investigate by only considering a narrow slice of the potential audience for said blogs.
That's not exactly neutral though, but part of a larger theme of regression from literacy to a visual and oral culture (and a dopamine seeking junky one).
Video outcompeting text as a mainstream medium for both information and entertainment is as old as television. Youtube would be a more reliable way to make money than a blog in 2026 even if it was primarily consumed on TVs or PCs.
It does not require a "service" to consume multiple blogs efficiently, just simply "software" (an app will do).
The below RSS readers pretty much do their job and get out of the user's way. What's amazing is the sheer number of RSS readers that people choose to use; there are so many, people find ones that they personally like.
On desktop: Vienna https://www.vienna-rss.com/
On iOS: R2SReader https://apps.apple.com/us/app/r2sreader/id1608635613
Of course, if one wanted to use a service (or run one oneself), for features like syncing, then that is possible too.
But the basic setup remarkably simple, easy, and useful by itself IMO.
The question was "How would I, without any special services, consume multiple blogs today?"
You can do that with RSS.
Now you are saying it doesn't matter because everyone is on Instagram. So you aren't consuming "multiple blogs" in the first place, you're just consuming multiple Instagram accounts.
Keep in mind that nothing stops Instagram from providing RSS feeds for each user account.
You could literally just tell people to stop using Instagram and use Tumblr instead and the problem would solve itself. Tumblr hosts photos, photos albums, and videos, including blogs of several photographers. Tumblr has RSS feeds for each blog. You don't need to have a Tumblr account to follow blogs on Tumblr, you can just put them all into your RSS app and be done. You don't even need a separate RSS app. Vivaldi, a web browser, has an RSS client built-in.
Reddit has RSS feeds. Youtube has RSS feeds. Wordpress has RSS feeds (this is 50% of blogs, essentially). Mastodon has RSS feeds. Bluesky has RSS feeds.
There is nothing that we can do if people deliberately choose to go into a walled garden, but the open gardens still existand you have the full ability to use those instead.
Maybe if more people understood the value proposition of RSS's, they would have more reason to stop using Instagram and move.
I beg to differ. Follow 12 “people” on Insta and you’re just telling the algorithm you’re into parent stuff, or fashion, or makeup, or cars, or attractive women, or attractive men. It’s not like even 50% of what they serve you will BE those 12 people you followed. Most of what you get will be related to the same niches, but it’ll be from randos and AI instead.
It’s nothing like how simple RSS, Google Reader, or even Flipboard in its original iteration, made it to follow a bunch of specific “creators.”
I love the idea of RSS yes.
It's still interesting to see that "top 100" hugely succesful blogs can go so much down, even if it's "natural churn".
Then there's the fact that blogs in the "Top 100" are big business (money wise), often established for a decade or more, and have enough subscribers/viewers to spare. So unlikely to just be "dead" in n+5, just declining (which this tracks).
>Also note that this specifically focuses on blogs designed to make money and dealing with general-interest stuff like fashion or travel. A lot of this has moved onto Instagram and TikTok as a byproduct of people using phones as their primary "content consumption" devices.
So? That's an explanation for the drop. The post tracks the drop itself.
I noticed Google's AI summary seems to link to seemingly obscure videos occasionally.
It Will be interesting to see what happens to YouTube once AI turns it All to text and indexes it. Efficiently viewing YouTube must be at odds with how they want you to keep watching
There's also no discussion of how blogging has always been somewhat frothy: picking the successful blogs (by any metric) and then checking back later is almost guaranteed to show a decrease. A fair comparison would show the top blogs now vs then, or even better the overall landscape (but that's a ton of work).
So, eventually no one will write them.
Here's something I learned today - if you stab a feijoa with a sharp enough knife, it screams. Try it.
People are way less likely tondo pointless thing.
> People will still express themselves the way they always have because people want to do that.
People were not always writing blogs. Blogs existed when search engines returned personal long for writings. They were not a thing before and the culture atarted to die after google enshittified engine.
People weren't always writing blogs because the term and associated platforms hadn't always existed but people were always writing, often about themselves, and BBSs and personal websites served the purpose that blogs later would online.
Blogs and search engines happened to arrive on the web at almost the same time and evolved in parallel. The vast majority of early blogs were written without any visibility on search engines much less any viewers. It's difficult to imagine in the modern day but people used to do things because they wanted to, not to maximize commercial interest or fame. Search engines helped the popularity of blogs, but weren't the catalyst so much as the existence of services like Blogger and Livejournal. What killed blogs wasn't google but social media. But people kept writing on social media in much the same way that they did on blogs. The medium changed but the desire for self expression didn't. We just call blogs feeds now but it's more or less the same thing.
Now maybe sometime soon AI replaces that too, but I think by that point we're talking about "automation of the majority of human intellectual labor" and are well beyond blogs in particular.
The fact that now only substack blogs survived is result of the exact process I am talking about - search engine not returning smaller platforms and those blogs dying.
AI is just another step in that process.
I'm going to guess that means "the blogs you know, you primarily found from Google searches"?
Most of the substacks I follow are because I encountered the author's thoughts on X or forums like this one. I don't know if anyone else is like that but I'm also not sure why you're generalising, seemingly quite hastily.
Add to that Bluesky, Mastodon, X, Threads, etc. and you have a very fragmented space of people exchanging content at each other.
It's not so much that blogging is dead but that it got overtaken by other platforms that aren't necessarily much better. And the fragmentation hurts distribution. And commercialization, injects a lot of bad incentives into the whole space that rewards people that are mostly just very loud and uninteresting.
A lot of the blogging tools still work fine. It's not that hard to accumulate lists of interesting RSS feeds. Mastodon actually has RSS feeds, BTW. It can double as a blogging platform.
It's just that it all competes for attention and some people are a bit too loud. At this point, the signal to noise ratio is pretty terrible for an unfiltered list of blogs these days. That was fine when people moderated themselves. But now that they don't, it's hard to filter out all the noise. And the commercial algorithms don't help much as they tend to favor click bait rather than substance.
What's annoying is that you can put effort in and de-AI something. But it takes work. And no one wants to put the time in.
> We believe that this document is a mix of AI-generated, and human-written content: 78% AI likelihood
Agatha Christie, 1936
They moved to Youtube/Instagram/TikTok for better reach, a larger, total audience, and improved monetization
I say this not just to be snarky (OK, maybe a little bit), but a lot of the content on these blogs was just bad, e.g. hawking get rich quick schemes where the author obviously was giving bad advice.
> The blog-as-a-business model, involving publishing, ranking, monetizing clicks, and repeating the cycle, is dead. Not dying but dead
It is about a particular type of directly profit making blog business model:
> The recipe was pretty straightforward: publish helpful content, rank it on Google, and monetize that traffic with affiliate marketing and ads.
All of these "paid short courses so you can make tons of passive income", which were a sizable number of the blogs on this article's list, are invariably pyramid/grifter scams, whether it's Trump University, "learn Amazon drop shipping", "real estate investing", yada yada. The course proprietor makes a lost more money than any of their clients ever do.
So, you can move on, you can go fully away from the blogosphere (it was a word, 20 years ago), this will not change that I am happy writing my ideas/thoughts down, for me.
Note: Interestingly, seeing my full name here is not something I expected.
For some things there is value in them being publicly accessible even if nobody but me cares or uses them.
I have a wiki for that, but I keep reading the Arbiters of the Internet around here claim wikis are even deader than personal blogs, so what do I know. :-)