Yahoo Buzz Introduces Widgets and RSS Feeds to Take On Digg

Submitted by robdiana 2 months ago

Yahoo Buzz, a more elementary competitor to Digg and other vote-based link aggregation and promotion engines of similar ilk, has ...

@robdiana

Censorship? Censorship is what you'll find at Yahoo Buzz, where editors (not users) determine the news that appears on the site. If you want to see censorship in action, try to submit a story about Mixx at Yahoo Buzz. Oh wait, you can't do that because Buzz doesn't allow users to submit stories.

What I am advocating is called editorial discretion and good taste --- not censorship!

I will disclaim that I have a number of specific gripes with Buzz, most notably that it is falsely billing itself as a social media site. Buzz is not social media, but rather a repackaging of the painfully mainstream Yahoo News into a format that bears some limited resemblance to social media, at least in a cosmetic sense. Fundamentally, Buzz is the antithesis of what drives social media --- a disdain for the mainstream press and gatekeeping editors who decide what news is important and what can be buried.

In reality, Buzz is little more than a backdoor attempt by the mainstream media to get a foothold in social media, and Yahoo is the company through which they've chosen to pursue this ends.

Yahoo seems to be of the mentality that if they claim to be a social media site for long enough and repeat those claims enough times, that people will just come to accept Yahoo's redefining of the term "social media" to suit its own needs without questioning the accuracy of the claim that Buzz is a "social media" site.

Well, I for one refuse to accept Yahoo's definition of what a social media site is. Until I can add stories from whatever sites I deem fit (including from and about Mixx), Buzz is nothing but Yahoo News with voting and comments.

Enough of my criticism of Buzz, lets get back to the original point. Yahoo, Inc. is a publicly-traded global enterprise with a market cap of $35.28 Billion. In other words, Yahoo can afford to pay for advertising. Yet, instead of doing so, Yahoo seems content to use press releases to generate free publicity on the many competing sites that ARE democratic and allow USERS to control the news --- something Yahoo would never allow those same sites to do on Buzz.

There is a double-standard in which Yahoo expects (and receives) free publicity from real social media sites while using authoritarian censorship policies to police its own site, forbidding even the mere mention of a competitor's name.

For the record, legitimate news items involving Yahoo are a totally different thing altogether and are not the subject of my criticism. The thing that irritates me is the fact that they recycle information in their seemingly daily (uninformative) press releases that appear to be distributed for no other reason than to generate publicity on competing sites.

Think about it: Have you ever seen a story having to do with Mixx prominently featured on Buzz? Have you ever seen a story about Mixx on Buzz, period? No? I haven't either.

The reason there are no stories about Mixx on Buzz is that Yahoo's EDITORS (not users) determine which content is appropriate for Buzz, and they wouldn't be caught dead featuring an article about a competitor. If you want to talk about censorship, you can start with Yahoo, as Yahoo is the only company billing itself as a social media site that makes no secret of the fact its editors censor its site.

Until Buzz is willing to subject its own site to the kind of spam its marketers have been inundating sites like Mixx with for months now, it should not be the beneficiary of free publicity from legitimate social media sites. It's time to look at Yahoo Buzz for what it really is --- deceptive mainstream media spam!

It's time Yahoo started playing by the same rules they expect others to adhere to, and it's time that we the people stopped giving Yahoo a free pass on the double-standards of promotion involving Buzz on social media sites, as well as on Yahoo's attempt to redefine the term "social media".

@robdiana

My rant wasn't directed at you. You are a terrific Mixxer and I hold you in high esteem as such. You just happened to submit the Buzz story that put me over the edge. Regardless of who submitted it, my response would have been the same.

Both my educational and professional background is in media and marketing. I don't expect everyone to know the inner-workings of a marketing or public relations campaign, and the degree of planning and coordination that go into such promotional endeavors. That said, when I observe something within that realm that effectively constitutes advertising disguised as news, I often feel compelled to speak up.

In this case, the concealed advertisements were intended to work to the detriment of a company that I have made a substantial emotional investment into (Mixx), and admittedly, it struck a bit of a nerve with me.

Again though, I reiterate that any vitriol in my response was directed at Yahoo, and in particular their respective marketing, public relations and/or advertising departments, contractors and consultants.

Make no mistake, I stand by my view. But I do recognize that I have a very different perspective about this issue than do most casual newshounds and social media participants, and I hold no animosity towards you or anyone else who submits a story the likes of which I have raved against with nothing but good intentions.

Submit what you see fit. In the rare instance I may take exception to something, I'll vote it down and explain exactly why. I usually enjoy your content though, and I especially wanted to make sure you understand that, and that my rant was nothing personal.

- jameskm03
- added 2 months ago
@robdiana i completely agree that Buzz could be a game changer. They could really bring this stuff to the main stream. No matter how you want to dice it Yahoo is the #1 web property and their homepage is king among everyone outside the tech/web world.
- robdiana
- added 2 months ago
@jameskm03
Well, you would think, but I looked at buzz earlier today. You can barely find the rss link, and there are 0-1 votes for all the tech stories in the past day. I was underwhelmed.
- Honest_Ape
- added 2 months ago
These guys haven't thrown in the towel yet on this site? I gave 'em a month. Guess they're gluttons for punishment. No one's interested in it. Too little, too late.
- babychen
- added 2 months ago
@Honest_Ape
New sites - top ones - are getting added to Buzz all the time. I keep coming across some bigass site, and there I see a link that says Buzz Up.
I don't like it that they are not 'social' as in no one can submit stories yet. But the sites which get featured there are getting traffic from yahoo - i dont think they are gonna go down anytime!
- robdiana
- added 2 months ago
@babychen @Honest_Ape
It is more of a news aggregator still, but with votes throw in. It is hard to judge what it will do, because it is not controlled by the same group who do social media. This is mass-consumer traffic. Who knows how it will pan out.
- FatLester
- added 2 months ago
I think it's time to stop promoting Mixx's competitors here on Mixx. Not every press release from these companies is newsworthy.
- robdiana
- added 2 months ago
@FatLester
I don't see it as promoting competitors as much as finding news. It just happens to be news in the same space as mixx. I hope we can stay a site that will accept almost any content and not censor because it is a competitor. You can also vote as you feel because that is also the point here.
- FatLester
- added 2 months ago
@robdiana

Censorship? Censorship is what you'll find at Yahoo Buzz, where editors (not users) determine the news that appears on the site. If you want to see censorship in action, try to submit a story about Mixx at Yahoo Buzz. Oh wait, you can't do that because Buzz doesn't allow users to submit stories.

What I am advocating is called editorial discretion and good taste --- not censorship!

I will disclaim that I have a number of specific gripes with Buzz, most notably that it is falsely billing itself as a social media site. Buzz is not social media, but rather a repackaging of the painfully mainstream Yahoo News into a format that bears some limited resemblance to social media, at least in a cosmetic sense. Fundamentally, Buzz is the antithesis of what drives social media --- a disdain for the mainstream press and gatekeeping editors who decide what news is important and what can be buried.

In reality, Buzz is little more than a backdoor attempt by the mainstream media to get a foothold in social media, and Yahoo is the company through which they've chosen to pursue this ends.

Yahoo seems to be of the mentality that if they claim to be a social media site for long enough and repeat those claims enough times, that people will just come to accept Yahoo's redefining of the term "social media" to suit its own needs without questioning the accuracy of the claim that Buzz is a "social media" site.

Well, I for one refuse to accept Yahoo's definition of what a social media site is. Until I can add stories from whatever sites I deem fit (including from and about Mixx), Buzz is nothing but Yahoo News with voting and comments.

Enough of my criticism of Buzz, lets get back to the original point. Yahoo, Inc. is a publicly-traded global enterprise with a market cap of $35.28 Billion. In other words, Yahoo can afford to pay for advertising. Yet, instead of doing so, Yahoo seems content to use press releases to generate free publicity on the many competing sites that ARE democratic and allow USERS to control the news --- something Yahoo would never allow those same sites to do on Buzz.

There is a double-standard in which Yahoo expects (and receives) free publicity from real social media sites while using authoritarian censorship policies to police its own site, forbidding even the mere mention of a competitor's name.

For the record, legitimate news items involving Yahoo are a totally different thing altogether and are not the subject of my criticism. The thing that irritates me is the fact that they recycle information in their seemingly daily (uninformative) press releases that appear to be distributed for no other reason than to generate publicity on competing sites.

Think about it: Have you ever seen a story having to do with Mixx prominently featured on Buzz? Have you ever seen a story about Mixx on Buzz, period? No? I haven't either.

The reason there are no stories about Mixx on Buzz is that Yahoo's EDITORS (not users) determine which content is appropriate for Buzz, and they wouldn't be caught dead featuring an article about a competitor. If you want to talk about censorship, you can start with Yahoo, as Yahoo is the only company billing itself as a social media site that makes no secret of the fact its editors censor its site.

Until Buzz is willing to subject its own site to the kind of spam its marketers have been inundating sites like Mixx with for months now, it should not be the beneficiary of free publicity from legitimate social media sites. It's time to look at Yahoo Buzz for what it really is --- deceptive mainstream media spam!

It's time Yahoo started playing by the same rules they expect others to adhere to, and it's time that we the people stopped giving Yahoo a free pass on the double-standards of promotion involving Buzz on social media sites, as well as on Yahoo's attempt to redefine the term "social media".
- robdiana
- added 2 months ago
@FatLester
Ah, OK. I see what you mean. I was just submitting news like a good mixxer should. I can't promise I won't submit something about Buzz again as it will be in the news, but I will take what you say into consideration before submitting it. I will use the "must be newsworthy" idea for them. Thanks for the clarification as well.
- FatLester
- added 2 months ago, edited 2 months ago
@robdiana

My rant wasn't directed at you. You are a terrific Mixxer and I hold you in high esteem as such. You just happened to submit the Buzz story that put me over the edge. Regardless of who submitted it, my response would have been the same.

Both my educational and professional background is in media and marketing. I don't expect everyone to know the inner-workings of a marketing or public relations campaign, and the degree of planning and coordination that go into such promotional endeavors. That said, when I observe something within that realm that effectively constitutes advertising disguised as news, I often feel compelled to speak up.

In this case, the concealed advertisements were intended to work to the detriment of a company that I have made a substantial emotional investment into (Mixx), and admittedly, it struck a bit of a nerve with me.

Again though, I reiterate that any vitriol in my response was directed at Yahoo, and in particular their respective marketing, public relations and/or advertising departments, contractors and consultants.

Make no mistake, I stand by my view. But I do recognize that I have a very different perspective about this issue than do most casual newshounds and social media participants, and I hold no animosity towards you or anyone else who submits a story the likes of which I have raved against with nothing but good intentions.

Submit what you see fit. In the rare instance I may take exception to something, I'll vote it down and explain exactly why. I usually enjoy your content though, and I especially wanted to make sure you understand that, and that my rant was nothing personal.
- robdiana
- added 2 months ago
@FatLester
Eventually, I understood the rant was more about the situation not my particular post. No offense taken. Given your history here, I also knew that the comments obviously had something behind them. So it was interesting to see the information you provided.

Thanks for all of the info.