It would have been much less work to add all the tags and other new stuff on top of the 18-year-old structure of regional boards.
That CBS instead demolished the regional boards and paid for all the work necessary to distribute their topics among topical boards suggests very strongly that they saw the regional boards as incompatible with their plans. I presume their goal is to create something in between Yelp and TripAdvisor.
Sort of like getting a letter from your apartment management company that the building is being turned into condos and they don’t care if you buy in or not.
I don’t read TripAdvisor, but Yelp certainly has a regional focus. What similarities do you see to Yelp in the new CH, Robert?
Taxonomy, hierarchy. It’s more like TripAdvisor, though, I just posted on there today and the long, complicated process reminded me very much of the made-over Chowhound.
Yelp has no regional sections in the sense that Chowhound did or this board does. The businesses are geotagged, so the search can be based on addresses, place names, region names, etc. Any location-based result set is ad hoc.
i got emails from the mods which i deleted without reading.
i really don’t care. i decided that i’'m done with chowhound for good.
i’m still in the anger phase of the loss.
I will say this.
I find it fascinating that, when doing a search for “other websites” in the Food Media thing-a-ma-jig, there are several threads of Chowhound vs Yelp. Including threads inquiring about other websites to find restaurant reviews and recommendations. One thread even goes back to 2007. Yet, as of right now, no one is allowed to even mention FTC anywhere without being deleted/suspended/banned?
This shows a total lack of confidence on TPTB’s part.
In the case of the thread started in 2007; it appears to have been moved, some time ago, from the LA boards to the Food Media boards. So, essentially, an administrator has already touched it, deeming the thread to be of value by allowing it and moving it to what they believe was the correct board.
I put HO and FTC in my profile as “my website” and “about me”.
2015 is most certainly NOT the same as 2007 over there!!
which, of course, leaves the question:
why did they pay ANYTHING for CH given that basically it wasn’t what they wanted or valued?
In 2006, CNET was trying to expand into “lifestyle” publishing, so both CHOW (which started as a print magazine) and Chowhound fit into that strategy.
In 2008, CBS was trying to expand its web business, so CNET fit that strategy.
CNET actually started as a cable television production company in 1994.
thank you , robert.
the whole saga makes me think of Ishtar.
maybe they’ll buy you out Robert…
CNET in general has been suffering. In addition to its news stories and analyses, it’s always been a repository for freeware, shareware and demo versions of other software. There are now stories around that people have found malware in some of those programs, and advisories to download directly from the software providers’ sites instead of CNET. In fact, I haven’t seen many links to their articles recently.
ouch. Glad to hear that – haven’t downloaded anything in a good long while, but used to start searches there under they assumption they are safe.
One and only hijack malware I picked-up was thanks to a download from CNET. (For ABP, oddly enough.) That was a costly fix.
I wasn’t banned, but I’ve had several posts deleted with no explanation.
Obviously you don’t have enough street cred to post here.
Kidding. Of course, just kidding.
Welcome!
