Updated Oct 2026: In 2012 I wrote about publishers chasing pageviews with junk. In 2026 the same thing is happening with AI-generated slop. The lesson still holds: useful content outlasts cheap traffic. Originally published 2012-04 on phillipohren.com.
We live in one of the most prolific wars ever. The war for pageviews. To publishers specifically, this is the metric to-die for. More pageviews, more advertising revenue. But how low should one stoop for page views?
I love Lolcatz, who doesn’t? I also like the odd peek at College Humor & even Saracastic.com.au. Crazy sites like these are aimed at the youth and the youth-within. These websites attract millions of pageviews and are heavily fueled by social media sharing. As a result most of their posts go “viral” without any effort at all.
Over the past 12 months I’ve noticed that mainstream media has lowered its threshold around valuable content. Covering at times what can only be referred to as pointless content. Is this solely because this type of content is potentially viral? Of course, tabloids have been doing this for years. A part of me condones this movement by the mainstream media, but where do you draw the line?
Yesterday in their “Breaking News” section, News.com.au covered a story titled: “Man opens bag of Cheese Rings, finds one” a story that was indeed “har har” funny but was it really front page news?
The iTabloid has risen. It’s cheaper than ever (Free) and it wants your pageviews.
Images are linked to their Wayback Machine copies for now and need re-hosting before publishing. Archived from the Wayback Machine, October 2026.
