A recent Techcrunch Forum thread asked what is the difference between Techcrunch, Mashable and Read/WriteWeb? I think each has a unique brand and we're pretty complementary when it comes down to it. But the comments got me thinking about what type of content people expect from R/WW.
So please help us out and tell us what you like to read at R/WW; what type of posts rock your boat. The following poll is multi-choice.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1940
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
For me, it's the fact that you go in-depth, instead of simply pointing out to new services. Also, I'm less interested in business, and more in the human/usability/innovation side of things.
Posted by: franticindustries | February 5, 2007 4:06 AM
I like that R/W is not a knee-jerk blog. You discuss ideas and issues with time and patience and you don't personalise issues or get involved in petty rants. I also like that you don't report on every dime that some company is given by a VC. Stock analysis, VC funding etc. etc. is best left to the professionals and not arm-chair financiers.
Posted by: Paul M. Watson | February 5, 2007 4:28 AM
I subscribed to RW RSS with Anothr.com. Anytime I think it's worth reading, I will click through.
Posted by: Isaac | February 5, 2007 4:32 AM
Just like franticindustries, it's the in-depth stuff that keeps me coming back.
There's more than enough lining to other sites interest stuff online.
If you subscribe to a dozen RSS-feeds, chances are that the same story - if deeemed interesting enough - will appear in at least two of those feeds.
Frustrating...
Free, in-depth articles are pretty rare these days.....
Posted by: Michael | February 5, 2007 4:55 AM
For me TechCrunch means information about new startups and interesting unknown services. Little bit also news about Google etc., but there are much better sources in this respect - Google Operating System for example. So Read/WriteWeb I read because of commentaries, interesting complex thoughts. BTW I´ve read your previous CNET blog too, so I just switched ;)
I think you should not to try write about everything, that´s problem of Search Engine Land (for me) - they are trying to catch all news, but they are mostly only refering about something what have already been written otherwhere.
I looked ad my starred items in Google Reader and I see exactly that. TechCruch - mostly profiles of new services from unknown companies, R/WW commentary articles, Google Operating System, Google Blogoscoped or Search Engine Journal news from big portals.
Posted by: jilm | February 5, 2007 5:11 AM
The netvibes feed
Posted by: mi ly | February 5, 2007 5:45 AM
RWW has some very interesting articles, and as mentioned above , they are not normal Knee Jerk reactions to something posted on ye olde t'interweb.
Your writers, will go out and thoroughly research it before its posted. I read all my websites now through Google Reader and click through to interesting articles. I think I click through to about 75% of your articles, and only about 10% of TechCrunch. Why? I am not really that interested in new companies, or products. I prefer the interface, and how the average Joe InternetUser is going to be able to deal with these things.
Keep up the good work! Have you ever done an analysis on how may times your articles are saved on all of the Social Bookmarking sites, compared to your rivals? I think it would make interesting reading..
Posted by: Jez | February 5, 2007 5:54 AM
To me it breaks down like this:
TechCrunch = startup reviews/Web 2.0 news
Mashable = social website news (often too obscure to make it on TC)
R/WW = excellent analysis of the most important trends and concepts mentioned on the other two (+ some news and reviews)
Also, I find that you're generally more engaged with your readers than Pete or Mike (probably because Mike just gets too many comments to regularly respond, and Pete's readers are less engaging to begin with). :)
But I read everything each of those three blogs write.
Posted by: Josh | February 5, 2007 6:24 AM
RWW always has a great variety of content that is well written and personalized. Ditto with the "engaged" with your readers comment above.
Posted by: eoecho | Greg Magnus | February 5, 2007 7:06 AM
I share some of the same thoughts in #1,4,8. Just to add one more, I like the fact that RWW has more International content, which is great. TechCrunch's stories are heavily focused on the Silcon Valley.
Posted by: Richard Chang | February 5, 2007 7:35 AM
You always seem to know about the new stuff. I like that you're really up to date on new web tools. I don't read either of those other sites, though.
Posted by: Jess | February 5, 2007 7:36 AM
I come back for the analyses, such as the recent briefs and articles on Google Docs, Microsoft Office vs. Online threats, and Zoho Notebook. The news is fine, but the analysis is what sets RWW apart from the herd.
Posted by: Zaine Ridling | February 5, 2007 8:12 AM
I come back for the original contents.
Posted by: SearchTheWeb2 | February 5, 2007 8:37 AM
love the global perspective. I have not found another site that talks about other countries. You always seem to have the most interesting articles with gr8 insight. I usually go to originalsignal to get my news, BUT read your postings first. Your 'titles' always seem to grab my attention. You have a gr8 website.
Posted by: Mustafa | February 5, 2007 9:46 AM
Yeah, I feel that Read/Write web offers a more studious and broader analysis of developments in internet technology than TechCrunch and Mashable provide. They do adhere to that 'surmise of a start-up' format.
I think Read/Write Web excels in terms of its analysis of trends, searching, tagging. I've not been reading long but the two articles I've saved to Delish have been Trendwatching (18/01) and The Top 100 Alternative Search Engines (29/01).
Actually, TechCrunch, Read/Write Web and Mashable! follow each other in my feed reader. Lifehacker comes next and, though its 'how to make contact with extra-terrestrials using just a lemonade bottle and an old cassette tape' elements are not quite so Web2.0, I feel it is of a piece with these three sites.
But Read/Write Web... tops, more trendspotting please x
Posted by: Benjamin | February 5, 2007 11:12 AM
Richard - Like some of the other comments have already said, you provide a much more international view which is refreshing.
Posted by: David | February 5, 2007 1:40 PM
In depth analysis is what keeps me hanging. Mentions of new service launches by BigCo's is of less interest.
The 2007 trends was absolutely great, gave me a feeling of reading cutting edge information about web2.
Posted by: Emil | February 5, 2007 6:19 PM
I like your issue-wise reviews and roundup stories.
Posted by: pramit | February 6, 2007 2:06 AM
I like the fact you're a fellow kiwi (and not afraid to tell everyone, even though I'm sure your audience are predominately americans). I like the in depth reviews of new web services rather than just providing a link to something new. The roundups of favourite apps in different countries has been fun. Also the analysis of new big company apps like google, yahoo and microsoft stuff is invaluable.
I look to your site first everyday for a slice of something new to read about. Keep up the good work.
PS. Bummer about the cricket today!
Posted by: dave | February 6, 2007 2:48 PM
Widely-available information is not important.
What is crucial to me is analysis and trends. The subjects should be any tool/techno that supports the pulverisation of user data: microchunking and distributing technologies.
Here are recent examples:
Feb:
01: Widgetbox Releases Blidgets
Jan:
31: How Google's Gmail / Docs & Spreadsheets Integration Directly Targets Microsoft
29: Nobody Knows You're A Dog 2.0
25: Amazon Quietly Launches Amapedia, a Wikipedia For Products
18: Ajax Is The Pepperoni Of Web Development... But What's Next?
17: A Best of Breed Future
Posted by: Eric Maugendre | February 7, 2007 4:59 AM