How many clicks come from Facebook vs. G+ vs. Twitter vs. reddit vs. Digg? | Hacker News Reader

How many clicks come from Facebook vs. G+ vs. Twitter vs. reddit vs. Digg?

7 pointsdotcoma13 comments

For example, for major newspapers. Thanks.

G+ is still in an early phase, so if you're in tech it can be a great source — but perhaps not for a New York Times. Facebook can be good, but you have to really build up your page and work it right -- and the same goes with playing Twitter. As for reddit it's very hostile to linking outside, the entire front page is a Gen Y confessional booth combined with a ton of links to imgur. And as much as I love Digg, it's a shadow of what it was even two years ago...

Thanks, but I'm pretty much in the know (I work in this field) and a big reddit fan in spite of being twice the age of Gen Y. What I was looking for was numbers. I know reddit is now a more important source of links than Digg (even though I can't find the data right now) but I was wondering how it plays out with the rest, in particular vs. Twitter. Thanks again for any help :)

Actually everyone I use to know from Digg (the front page makers) are mostly into StumbleUpon rather than Reddit. I also have another friend from my Digg days who built up his Facebook page via ads and that gives his blog quite a few page views. But i don't really see many folks trying to push content on reddit — the front page is off limits so you're stuck with the sub-reddits (which can be good but they can also be a waste of time). I don't have any good numbers on reddit or Twitter because I haven't really pushed stuff there for quite some time (so sorry if this didn't help you much).

Thanks, but I'm not interested in "pushing" anything, really (I call that spam).

I'm just trying to position Twitter where it belongs amongst the "link sharing" websites (yes, you're right, I should also take StumbleUpon into consideration): how big is it really, how over-hyped, how over-valued etc.

I think the question is a little too broad for helpful specific answers.

How would you reformulate it?

My curiosity was mostly along the lines of: how in the world is it possible that reddit is run by 4 people and Twitter has 300 employees, got 300 million in VC money and just got another 800 million? Isn't Twitter in the end "just another link sharing service"?

'just another link sharing service'

You only need to look at recent events to see that Twitter goes far beyond a link sharing service. It's been the representation of freedom of speech to the childlike ranting medium of Charlie Sheen.

>It's been the representation of freedom of speech to the childlike ranting medium of Charlie Sheen.

I'm sorry, but I think I don't understand. Could you please explain the above sentence to me? Thanks.

Your OP question seems phrased at click-throughs whereas your current question is about technical execution. What are you really asking?

Ok. To me, there are no "social networks". There is the open web, where Google (not search.twitter.com) is the tool we use to find stuff, and then there's the closed web, Facebook.

I am puzzled - to say the least - about Twitter. I'm trying to understand how big - and important, more than big, really - it really is vs. how over-hyped, how over-valued etc.

Hope this can help you help me. Thanks :)

The scale of reddit is quite tiny when put next to Twitter: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/reddit.com+twitter.com/

well, but according to compete.com digg is still twice as large as reddit, which it clearly is not.

i agree -- you need to take compete with a large grain of salt...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com