I admit I kind of new to the startup scene, but why is it I hear that getting mentioned on TC is worth it's weight in gold? It looks like a less frequently updated, bad copy of Engadget or Gizmodo than anything else. Not sure if the linked article is accurate or not, but I'm not sure why there is all this love/hate towards TC?
I find WAY more interesting articles and discussions here on HN. Plus the discussions and comments here are hands down better than the 4chan crap on those other sites (TC, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc).
Yeah its the only bad thing I see about HN; it seems like everything t/c says makes it to the front page for some reason. You click on the headline, read the sometimes inflammatory/trollish story, scroll down and see that the author and commenters are usually fighting about something silly. t/c is by no means a site for "hackers" to read..
A good example -- google voice announced months ago (when the site launched) that portability would be coming soon. Somehow Arrington figured it out yesterday and posted a really poor story implying it was some sort of "secret" weapon for Google (and got into the requisite argument with a commenter). That story somehow ends up on the HN front page.
I don't get the HN obsession with TC -- slashdot / reddit / digg and the other nerdy sites seem to ignore it and I wish this site would treat it like what it is as well.
To be fair, I didn't know that google would be offering portability until I read the story on TC. Sure I could follow Google's blog, but I don't. Maybe I'm just really good at ignoring Arrington's drama, but I really appreciate the information I get from TC.
And when a TC story ends up on the HN front page, I enjoy reading HN comments. Because there is no way in hell that I'm going to read the comments directly on the TC article.
My point on why it was a poorly written story was that he implied it was some sort of "secret" which he was breaking. Sure, most people missed the google voice FAQ which talked about this, but don't call it something it was not. Even if it was good, useful information, calling it a "secret" is a bit self-important.
And completely agreed with your point on HN comments for TC stories. That is a nice side-effect.
Because a large number of investors and potential clients read Techcrunch, so having your startup mentioned on the site does a lot for your notoriety amongst the business crowd. While Hacker News, Engadget and Gizmodo might be more interesting to us hackers, their audiences expose your company to fewer business prospects.
Drama leads to audience. TC is a master at drama (with product, people, and organization). So, if you want to get an audience, get into Techcrunch. However, I would agree the product has to be good, otherwise, it is just a big spike for nothing.
An audience of other people trying to get an audience, and some random odd techie types that read TC. What I'm saying is, the audience of TC is unlikely to be your target market.
Comments
I admit I kind of new to the startup scene, but why is it I hear that getting mentioned on TC is worth it's weight in gold? It looks like a less frequently updated, bad copy of Engadget or Gizmodo than anything else. Not sure if the linked article is accurate or not, but I'm not sure why there is all this love/hate towards TC?
I find WAY more interesting articles and discussions here on HN. Plus the discussions and comments here are hands down better than the 4chan crap on those other sites (TC, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc).
Yeah its the only bad thing I see about HN; it seems like everything t/c says makes it to the front page for some reason. You click on the headline, read the sometimes inflammatory/trollish story, scroll down and see that the author and commenters are usually fighting about something silly. t/c is by no means a site for "hackers" to read..
A good example -- google voice announced months ago (when the site launched) that portability would be coming soon. Somehow Arrington figured it out yesterday and posted a really poor story implying it was some sort of "secret" weapon for Google (and got into the requisite argument with a commenter). That story somehow ends up on the HN front page.
I don't get the HN obsession with TC -- slashdot / reddit / digg and the other nerdy sites seem to ignore it and I wish this site would treat it like what it is as well.
To be fair, I didn't know that google would be offering portability until I read the story on TC. Sure I could follow Google's blog, but I don't. Maybe I'm just really good at ignoring Arrington's drama, but I really appreciate the information I get from TC.
And when a TC story ends up on the HN front page, I enjoy reading HN comments. Because there is no way in hell that I'm going to read the comments directly on the TC article.
My point on why it was a poorly written story was that he implied it was some sort of "secret" which he was breaking. Sure, most people missed the google voice FAQ which talked about this, but don't call it something it was not. Even if it was good, useful information, calling it a "secret" is a bit self-important.
And completely agreed with your point on HN comments for TC stories. That is a nice side-effect.
Because a large number of investors and potential clients read Techcrunch, so having your startup mentioned on the site does a lot for your notoriety amongst the business crowd. While Hacker News, Engadget and Gizmodo might be more interesting to us hackers, their audiences expose your company to fewer business prospects.
Drama leads to audience. TC is a master at drama (with product, people, and organization). So, if you want to get an audience, get into Techcrunch. However, I would agree the product has to be good, otherwise, it is just a big spike for nothing.
>> "So, if you want to get an audience"
An audience of other people trying to get an audience, and some random odd techie types that read TC. What I'm saying is, the audience of TC is unlikely to be your target market.
PageRank. That's about it as far as I can see.