I said that at best it is impartial, and if anything, is more permissive to conservatives.
The fact that your "logic" is that extremists like KKK and other rightwing nut jobs are not allowed on twitter and thus have to create their own sites is proof of a double standard is absolutely insane.
You're so busy with your persecution fetish you cannot even see simple reason.
Considering a fair number of people on HN use Examine, I figured it may be of interest here.
We (full disclosure: I'm Sol, co-founder) recently expanded from a focus on evidence-based information on nutrition + supplements to tackling on the bigger picture of health. We've developed our own taxonomy here, with the intention of making it easier for anyone to find and understand their specific health concerns.
Not sure I follow - it's black text on white, 400px weight, 20px size.
> After the redesign
Our rankings actually spiked up 2 days after new design.
No 404s - it was a superficial change. Time on site went up. Delivery of content was faster (eg we moved to Cloudflare).
> clickbaity
I keep telling this to people - 90% of our traffic was to our supplement pages. They all had the same format that was very matter-of-fact. We only tried "emotional" title tags in the past year, and they didn't do anything.
> that there is a weakness in on page optimization decisions and general architecture across the site.
I'm honestly not sure I follow. Everything is under the /supplements/xxx or /nutrition/xxx format, and the index is fully available on both root folders. We interlink heavily, and we have our own internal wikicode (so eg creatine is linked as [creatine]) so the link is always accurate as is the tooltip quick summary.
> But the site could be much better composed and structured.
I'm being honest here - I don't see how. We've asked our users, and the HEM is more popular and should be higher, but we've done tests on usabilityhub, we track user behaviour (eg crazyegg), we've hired UX and UI experts (and other SEO experts). Our customer retention is great. I feel like I'm missing something.
I actually write zero of the content on Examine.com because I'm not qualified to do so. Which you would know if you actually looked at the site instead of arguing in bad-faith with a dash of superiority complex.
Unlike you, I try to separate my opinions from facts.
> since clearly the dishonest strategy that produced that headline was chosen intentionally, but I do want to make sure that you don't misunderstand my critique.
It's people like you that put a bad name on engineers.
> The thing that is oversimplified is the (broadly incorrect) belief held by many people, the belief you are arguing against. Since it contains an important element of truth, it is dishonest to simply call it a “myth”.
It's a myth if it's preached when it does not apply to a majority.
Yikes. I wonder how fresh and clear the air is up there on your high horse.
You should try reading the full article (the myths article links to an article that expounds on each myth) before accusing us of being oversimplified.
As for the myths themselves - we've received over 50,000 emails from our users over the past 8 years. I'm pretty confident we can state those as myths that remain persistent in the nutrition space.