How BuzzFeed’s Tasty Conquered Online Food(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How BuzzFeed’s Tasty Conquered Online Food
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/technology/how-buzzfeeds-tasty-conquered-online-food.html
115 comments
Recipes are not copyrightable, and I'd argue that it's actually beneficial to all of us to exchange recipes freely and allow for commercial reuse. Food is an important and quantifiable part of our lives, and improving it is a collective effort. As I support scientific papers "theft" by Scihub, in the same way I support Buzzfeed propagating good food.
That doesn't answer the charge of plagiarism.
It's videos of people making food on Facebook. It's not an academic article. No one cares, it isn't actionable.
Plenty of olds have quaint ideas about giving credit where credit is due.
I think outside of formal settings and in everyday life, it is common courtesy to give credit to people if you use their work or reference their ideas.
It is a video of a cartoon mouse named "Mickey" that only kids watch. It's not an academic article. No one cares, it isn't actionable.
Correct, that is a copyright violation. Based on the links above Tasty's videos are neither plagiarism, which is an offense in academia, but not commerce, nor Copyright, the commercial equivalent, which does not protect recipes.
Plagiarism has formal consequences in academia.
Taking credit for the work of others in any context is still plagiarism.
Taking credit for the work of others in any context is still plagiarism.
But do you understand that it's ethically wrong, regardless of whether or not it's illegal or formally defined? At a minimum, it's rude to copy someone's work without thanking them. You shouldn't need a higher authority to tell you this is wrong.
I'm not sure it's ethically wrong to take something in the public domain which holds no license or copyright whatsoever, and use it without attribution.
If snippets of the video were direct cuts from another show, that's a different story. But making a dish yourself and filming it is your own creation, I don't see why you have to thank anyone for it.
If snippets of the video were direct cuts from another show, that's a different story. But making a dish yourself and filming it is your own creation, I don't see why you have to thank anyone for it.
It is. It's benefiting from someone else's work without thanking them. This is basic elementary school ethics.
It's equivalent to performing a symphony, but not mentioning the music was written by Beethoven. Not illegal, but wrong, even if you don't explicitly claim it's your own work.
It's equivalent to performing a symphony, but not mentioning the music was written by Beethoven. Not illegal, but wrong, even if you don't explicitly claim it's your own work.
No, it's not. A symphony can be copyrighted.
It's the same as calculating force equals mass times acceleration, without thanking Newton every time. That's an example (natural law) which is always and immediately public domain, the same as recipes.
It's the same as calculating force equals mass times acceleration, without thanking Newton every time. That's an example (natural law) which is always and immediately public domain, the same as recipes.
But Beethoven symphonies are not copyrighted, they've been in the public domain for centuries. Is it ok if you use Beethoven?
f=ma is an interesting example. I still think you should mention that it's Newton's Second Law if you're teaching it, and I doubt there's a textbook out there that doesn't. If Newton had discovered this law last year and you wrote a book about it without mentioning him, that would be deeply unethical.
f=ma is an interesting example. I still think you should mention that it's Newton's Second Law if you're teaching it, and I doubt there's a textbook out there that doesn't. If Newton had discovered this law last year and you wrote a book about it without mentioning him, that would be deeply unethical.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Providing proper attribution does not in any way prevent you from exchanging recipes freely.
Well, as Sci-hub doesn't push links to Elsevier in every paper they obtain, you shouldn't expect BuzzFeed attributing food blogs. However, I do not defend BuzzFeed's actions, and it would probably be better off for everyone if they contacted SeriousEats up front for a bit of exclusive content. But as an amateur chef and nutrition enthusiast, I'm all happy when interesting recipes get pushed beyond their original websites even in this sloppy manner.
I just gotta say, that's a really weird analogy to make.
The ingredient list isn't copyrightable but other parts of the recipe (like images or explanations of how/why to do things) are: https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Is BuzzFeed copying those parts or replacing them with its own?
Also, related, it appears you can patent a recipe: https://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/inventors-eye-advice-1, though it wouldn't help much here.
Is BuzzFeed copying those parts or replacing them with its own?
Also, related, it appears you can patent a recipe: https://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/inventors-eye-advice-1, though it wouldn't help much here.
I've come to realize there are very few actually good recipes online that don't come from a small number of websites. Serious Eats being a major one.
What are the other ones that you know of?
Food Wishes and Cooking With Dog have been really good, although some of the adapted recipes are so-so. Bon Appetit has pretty good recipes, but they post a lot of stuff I have no interest in eating or making.
The Kitchn. NY Times Cooking (which needs a subscription now). Cook's Illustrated (also a subscription).
It isn't just the recipes. They got called out for ripping off other ideas on YouTube last year. I guess originality is hard.
What should Serious Eats do about that? Include some fake ingredients like the fake streets included in maps?
Recipes typically aren't copyrightable.
Source : https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
Recipes are. But the ingredient lists are not. The description are copyrightable as any other written work.
IANAL but I believe you are wrong. Source :
“[The] recipes’ directions for preparing the assorted dishes fall squarely within the class of subject matter specifically excluded from copyright protection by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).”
From : http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/publications_v_meredith.htm
“[The] recipes’ directions for preparing the assorted dishes fall squarely within the class of subject matter specifically excluded from copyright protection by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).”
From : http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/publications_v_meredith.htm
The parent is correct and you are wrong, but they are being downvoted anyway which I expect to to happen to me as well.
“Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients….. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.”[0]
Clearly a cooking show or in my opinion a video showing the preparation of a dish in context and with commentary is protectable.
But all of the opinion on the internet matters about as much as wind striking the face of a mountain compared to an actual litigation.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
“Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients….. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.”[0]
Clearly a cooking show or in my opinion a video showing the preparation of a dish in context and with commentary is protectable.
But all of the opinion on the internet matters about as much as wind striking the face of a mountain compared to an actual litigation.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
...and it wouldn't hurt anyone to give credit where credit is due.
Maybe slightly alter the amounts to that they form a checksum of sorts...
Is putting ice cream in between two pieces of bacon a recipe?
It's interesting to see this shift in the web to blatant plagarism and copyright infringement. In the days before social media having dupe content was the mark of death for your Google page rank. Now that doesn't matter anymore because of social network sharing, so it's just become a gigantic cesspool of hacks feeding on hacks.
Are were sure Serious Eats didn't "steal" them from someone else?
I'm not overly familiar with the website, but the few recipes from it I have come across are usually accompanied with an in-depth recount of the thought process that went into the recipe, including failed experiments and iterations, commentary on the origin of the dish and the author's experience with it, why a certain ingredient or technique was chosen in place of another, etc...
Look for Serious Eats recipes/articles about Ramen, Pizza or Yorkshire Pudding for some good examples.
It definitely looks and feels like OC (I really know nothing about Tasty, so I cannot comment on their alleged plagiarism).
Look for Serious Eats recipes/articles about Ramen, Pizza or Yorkshire Pudding for some good examples.
It definitely looks and feels like OC (I really know nothing about Tasty, so I cannot comment on their alleged plagiarism).
Pretty regular reader from Serious Eats here. Kenji (the guy who is the culinary director), puts tons of scientific rigor into all of his recipes. What sets Serious Eats aparts from everyone else is they like to answer the 'why' of food. For example here is a super detailed story:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/10/the-food-lab-science-of-h...
http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/10/the-food-lab-science-of-h...
Pretty sure you're weren't very familiar with Serious Eats when you wrote that, can you confirm this? I find it hard to believe that someone that cooks/reads Serious Eats would say that.
Yeah, I'm not. It was an honest question.
Asking if Kenji stole recipes is like asking if Modernist Cuisine stole recipes. You'd have to be unfamiliar with either to ask.
Hi I work for BuzzFeed engineering, but this is just me talking, not my company. The guy that started Tasty uses an empirical technique he devised in-house to come up with recipes people love. Wish I could say more than that. But I believe the "recipe space" he explores can come up with recipes that can at times look like previously published recipes. There are only so many combinations of ingredients that will click with the human palate. I guarantee you he's not directly ripping anyone off.
> I guarantee you he's not directly ripping anyone off.
You can understand why people might be less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, given that in the past Buzzfeed has extensively plagiarized:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/editors-note-an-apology-to...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/buzzfee...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/buzzfeed-vi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Stopera
You can understand why people might be less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, given that in the past Buzzfeed has extensively plagiarized:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/editors-note-an-apology-to...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/buzzfee...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/buzzfeed-vi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Stopera
Your citations quite literally mentions two people who wrote for BuzzFeed as far back as 2008, not even for Tasty.
It must be a truly incredible formula to consistently produce the same results as when serious eats spends multiple iterations researching and developing a recipe and documenting the process.
Serious Eats just demos techniques from popular molecular gastronomy books. (They do at least mention this when they do it).
Hi Nick,
I get the impulse to defend the company you work for. It's commendable. But if you're embarrassed to see your employer be accused of plagiarism, it would be a lot more effective for you to pressure people internally to start providing proper attribution than to write comments like this. Internal pressure can often accomplish things that external pressure can't.
I get the impulse to defend the company you work for. It's commendable. But if you're embarrassed to see your employer be accused of plagiarism, it would be a lot more effective for you to pressure people internally to start providing proper attribution than to write comments like this. Internal pressure can often accomplish things that external pressure can't.
Good point. However, BuzzFeed's record on plagiarism is also being painted here with a very broad brush. The real occurrences of plagiarism at BuzzFeed is not out-of-keeping with normal attrition at major media dailies in the US media. Every news organization has had issues with it at some point or another. BuzzFeed is no different.
That said there's definitely always room for improvement.
That said there's definitely always room for improvement.
I'm familiar with BuzzFeed's other "articles", and I've seen plenty of attribution there (e.g. articles that basically come straight from reddit, with each bullet point attributed to a reddit username, that always amuses me). I haven't actually watched any of the Tasty videos, so I haven't had a chance to see for myself if and when they get attributed, but if Kenji López-Alt is raging about Tasty on Twitter, then I have to assume there's a bit of a problem there.
However, when he first saw BuzzFeed’s recipe, published on their food site called Tasty, in May of this year, he said the ingredient list was nearly identical “with a few tweaks”. — Kenji López-Alt
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/buzzfeed-ac...
You can't copyright a list of ingredients.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/03/24/recipes-copyright...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/buzzfeed-ac...
You can't copyright a list of ingredients.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/03/24/recipes-copyright...
And that's why he's not suing them for copyright violation. But just because something isn't a copyright violation doesn't mean it's not plagiarism, and doesn't mean that you shouldn't provide attribution.
Give me a break.
>empirical technique he devised in-house to come up with recipes people love
This doesn't even mean anything. Empty words.
>empirical technique he devised in-house to come up with recipes people love
This doesn't even mean anything. Empty words.
"An empirical technique to come up with recipes people love" includes "picking the most popular recipes from other websites."
To be fair, that's my empirical technique.
Survivorship bias?
Whenever I see any gif with a recipe come by on my social media, it always seems to follow the same meta-recipe: hyperpalatable ingredient mixed with other hyperpalatable ingredient, the end result being something that has fat, sugar and salt in abundance.
I guess that it makes sense, producing the clickbait equivalent for taste (you watch it and think "oh that looks mouthwatering") but I don't recall ever watching these and thinking they look healthy.
EDIT: To clarify, I am specifically referring to adding a lot more sugar, salt and fat than we need; I do realise a lot of these recipes use vegetables, have plenty of fibres and essential nutrients, and so on, but hyperprocessed foods that lack those qualities is a different kind of unhealthy than what I'm talking about.
For the record, I never actively look online for recipes on any of these sites, so maybe that is also the reason I only see these recipes.
I guess that it makes sense, producing the clickbait equivalent for taste (you watch it and think "oh that looks mouthwatering") but I don't recall ever watching these and thinking they look healthy.
EDIT: To clarify, I am specifically referring to adding a lot more sugar, salt and fat than we need; I do realise a lot of these recipes use vegetables, have plenty of fibres and essential nutrients, and so on, but hyperprocessed foods that lack those qualities is a different kind of unhealthy than what I'm talking about.
For the record, I never actively look online for recipes on any of these sites, so maybe that is also the reason I only see these recipes.
They've got lots of fairly healthy recipes (as well as plenty of unhealthy ones, but nobody is pretending that brownies are healthy).
The problem isn't the nutritional content, it's that these videos are of recipes that just aren't very good to start with. They've nailed the ability to shoot something that looks incredibly tasty, but if you look at the recipes themselves, they lack flavour. Nothing has enough spices added, nothing is allowed to cook long enough, etc. Complexity and culinary sophistication is thrown out the window to make food-making look enticingly, deceptively simple and quick. They're not all bad, of course. You can sometimes make a good meal out of four ingredients.
In other words: The videos are designed to be addictive to watch, not to be realistic recipes.
The problem isn't the nutritional content, it's that these videos are of recipes that just aren't very good to start with. They've nailed the ability to shoot something that looks incredibly tasty, but if you look at the recipes themselves, they lack flavour. Nothing has enough spices added, nothing is allowed to cook long enough, etc. Complexity and culinary sophistication is thrown out the window to make food-making look enticingly, deceptively simple and quick. They're not all bad, of course. You can sometimes make a good meal out of four ingredients.
In other words: The videos are designed to be addictive to watch, not to be realistic recipes.
You're correct, they are the equivalent of food designers, at photo shoots. It's meant to look good on film, and nothing else. I wouldn't be surprised if the end result was not even real food on Buzzfeed. Using Elmers glue for milk on cereal, etc.
There's a wonderful parody of the style that explains how to make ice cubes
https://gfycat.com/HonorableThankfulHeron
https://gfycat.com/HonorableThankfulHeron
BuzzFeed-er here, in the NY office, where Tasty is produced:
The leftovers from every shoot are eaten by employees, and they go fast.
Former IT worker at a newspaper here: Journalists will eat anything free, fast. A bag of flour with a sign saying "free food!" would probably go in a few minutes.
You cruel, cruel people ;)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/more-sugar-more-pro...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/more-sugar-more-pro...
I think its doing a very good service if it can convince more people to cook on their own, and it does that by showing that cooking can be done without spending an entire day in the endeavor. Once you get a foot in the door... once people start cooking and realizing just how easy it is to whip up something really nice, hopefully they will do more of it.
Personally, as someone who cooks regularly, I use Tasty recipes more of a guide than something to follow through to a T. e.g. they had a recipe for BBQ ribs in oven, and it suggests coating the ribs with BBQ sauce at the end, which is absolutely unnecessary. The fat and spices actually give it a pretty great flavor... no need for the sugar laden sauce!
Personally, as someone who cooks regularly, I use Tasty recipes more of a guide than something to follow through to a T. e.g. they had a recipe for BBQ ribs in oven, and it suggests coating the ribs with BBQ sauce at the end, which is absolutely unnecessary. The fat and spices actually give it a pretty great flavor... no need for the sugar laden sauce!
The amount of seasoning and flavor development in all these fast recipes seems to be extremely lacking. I agree, they must be terribly bland.
A few of my healthier favorites:
Cauliflower Bites 4 Ways (https://www.facebook.com/officialgoodful/videos/137954362544...), Spaghetti Squash 4 Ways (https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/videos/17693405533185...), Tornado Zucchini (https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/videos/18670178935508...), Garlic-flavored zucchini chips (https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtastyjapan/videos/167296607...)
Cauliflower Bites 4 Ways (https://www.facebook.com/officialgoodful/videos/137954362544...), Spaghetti Squash 4 Ways (https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/videos/17693405533185...), Tornado Zucchini (https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtasty/videos/18670178935508...), Garlic-flavored zucchini chips (https://www.facebook.com/buzzfeedtastyjapan/videos/167296607...)
I guess that you mean that these recipes use vegetables as a base, which is more healthy than recipes for cookies or ice-cream. However, in all of them, there is still more fat, sugar and/or salt added than is healthy.
Take the cauliflower one: it's basically cauliflower, but now grilled with oil and topped with sweet/fatty/salt flavouring to make it more palatable.
Take the cauliflower one: it's basically cauliflower, but now grilled with oil and topped with sweet/fatty/salt flavouring to make it more palatable.
Cauliflower has basically no nutritional value anyway. Minimal vitamins and minerals, no digestible carbs or protein or fat.
Sure, but that is not relevant to the point of all the flavouring being of the cheap, unhealthy variety, is it?
Unless you mean that in a "it's worse than that" way
Unless you mean that in a "it's worse than that" way
Referring to cauliflower as "healthy" is dubious. It's healthy in the same sense that cotton is.
Ah, yes, I get you now :)
The "cotton" remark reminds me of the Cannibal Mouse episode of Mythbusters that will never be aired:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziQWDnFSPt8
The "cotton" remark reminds me of the Cannibal Mouse episode of Mythbusters that will never be aired:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziQWDnFSPt8
I'd urge anyone not to dedicate any significant fraction of their diet to these snacks.
I mean come on, cauliflower with BBQ sauce? That's kind of the problem with all these recipes, you take just about any ingredient and either bake or fry it: it's crispy and chunky. Then you throw on flavoring with some kind of sugar+fat+salt based sauce, and you've got a yummy, crispy, chunky piece of food. I bet you could make an ingredient out of 50% paper and 50% something ridiculous taste good that way, but it's not healthy.
Like take the BBQ Sauce cauliflower's ingredients. There's 115% your daily salt intake from the sauce alone. You get 375 calories from your BBQ sauce which is mostly sugar btw. You get 120 calories from your olive oil, and 140 calories from the cauliflower, assuming you eat it entirely. Then ontop of the 130% daily salt intake, the recipe says to add more salt to taste and put more BBQ sauce ontop after baking, which alone takes 30 minutes.
It's ridiculous, you probably spend about 40 minutes making a recipe that's about 20% cauliflower and 80% (way too sugary - easily 2x daily amount - and salty) sauce. And that's assuming the entire cauliflower is used, in reality it's quite a bit worse.
Now sure it's not the most unhealthy dish in the world, but there's nothing healthy about it either.
I mean come on, cauliflower with BBQ sauce? That's kind of the problem with all these recipes, you take just about any ingredient and either bake or fry it: it's crispy and chunky. Then you throw on flavoring with some kind of sugar+fat+salt based sauce, and you've got a yummy, crispy, chunky piece of food. I bet you could make an ingredient out of 50% paper and 50% something ridiculous taste good that way, but it's not healthy.
Like take the BBQ Sauce cauliflower's ingredients. There's 115% your daily salt intake from the sauce alone. You get 375 calories from your BBQ sauce which is mostly sugar btw. You get 120 calories from your olive oil, and 140 calories from the cauliflower, assuming you eat it entirely. Then ontop of the 130% daily salt intake, the recipe says to add more salt to taste and put more BBQ sauce ontop after baking, which alone takes 30 minutes.
It's ridiculous, you probably spend about 40 minutes making a recipe that's about 20% cauliflower and 80% (way too sugary - easily 2x daily amount - and salty) sauce. And that's assuming the entire cauliflower is used, in reality it's quite a bit worse.
Now sure it's not the most unhealthy dish in the world, but there's nothing healthy about it either.
Lowest common denominator. It's why they're so popular.
I can be more specific. They're all cheese. It is all about showing a cheese pull at the end. It's like cheese porn, and the cheese pull is the money shot.
Guess what's served in most fast food restaurants and available in most grocery stores? Exactly what you described.
I'm not sure they ever claimed that all their recipes were healthy.
I'm not sure they ever claimed that all their recipes were healthy.
It's not just fast food restaurants. Ever wonder why the food you make in the kitchen never stands up to (insert your favorite restaurant here)'s food even though you are using the same ingredients as them?
Sure, they have more experience in cooking and you don't have access to the recipe, but you bet there is a whole assortment of salt, butter, sugar, other fats (vegetables may be "sauteed" in bacon grease or duck fat) or MSG.
Interestingly, the fast food industry has to publish nutritional information where "small business" restaurants are not held to this standard.
Sure, they have more experience in cooking and you don't have access to the recipe, but you bet there is a whole assortment of salt, butter, sugar, other fats (vegetables may be "sauteed" in bacon grease or duck fat) or MSG.
Interestingly, the fast food industry has to publish nutritional information where "small business" restaurants are not held to this standard.
I don't know about others, but I put a lot of salt, butter, animal fats and MSG in the food I cook. I don't think any of these ingredients are unhealthy (other than sugar, which I don't use).
They aren't inherently unhealthy. I wager restaurant personnel are more liberal with them than if they were deeply concerned with the health of the person eating the meal, eg. their children.
I'm not surprised. Some of the early BuzzFeed people came from Demand Media, which if you remember brought you the seo spam machine that was eHow. BuzzFeed uses a lot of the same tactics we used, but they're more protected now because of social media. I can't imagine Facebook/Instagram/etc doing a "panda-esq" update to stop them.
> they're more protected now because of social media
I'm sorry, I don't understand. The techniques, or BuzzFeed? And how does social media protect them?
I'm sorry, I don't understand. The techniques, or BuzzFeed? And how does social media protect them?
With eHow we solely relied in flaws in the google ranking algorithm and crawler. Buzzfeed relies on social shares so it's not really something hint an algorithm can fix (easily). It'd also bring a lot of complaints from users if anyone tried to anyways.
I don't know about all that hype. Serious Eats, the Sporkful, etc are all better.
search for recipes 3 times a day and never even saw that site before.
seems like a paid puff piece.
seems like a paid puff piece.
They are not really a recipe site you find via your usual search engine use to cook something.
They just show up in your IG / FB feed all the time. From my experience people just "like" them because they look nice but never try to recreate them as the sped-up video format isn't great for that.
They just show up in your IG / FB feed all the time. From my experience people just "like" them because they look nice but never try to recreate them as the sped-up video format isn't great for that.
Yeah, their videos are for entertainment (as food porn) and for inspiration. You'll look up a real recipe later.
I wouldn't be surprised if watching these gifs somehow makes you even less likely to cook at home. Similar to the effect of salad being on the menu making it less likely that you'll make healthy choices.
That's why they now have their new Tasty mobile app. The app gives you a full recipe in addition to the video (and even hyperlinks each step in the recipe to the point in the video that shows it).
[deleted]
I'll miss cook's science (http://www.cooksscience.com), now thats its moving to America's test kitchen and thus behind the paywall.
The america's test kitchen show is fun but the cookbooks I really kind exceptional. They tend to explain why your cooking.
Trying to burn through csa veggies, we're using platejoy (YCS15)
The america's test kitchen show is fun but the cookbooks I really kind exceptional. They tend to explain why your cooking.
Trying to burn through csa veggies, we're using platejoy (YCS15)
Tasty is evil. Usually, their receipts waste half of the ingredients by making you overcooking them, or you will cover taste because they want to mix too many things together.
They have very good marketers, now they should hire a proper cook.
And in many cases: so. much. cheese. And cheese. And more cheese.
Exactly, what's the point of cooking anything more if it will taste of mozzarella and parmesan anyway?
Well, you know what some Italians say, when asked how much parmiggiano should you add to your pasta plate? They'll say: as much as you can afford.
So lots of cheese isn't that much of a problem, in my opinion.
So lots of cheese isn't that much of a problem, in my opinion.
It's not a problem, but if you fetch fresh veggies and then you add a ton of tasty cheese, you will miss all the delicate flavour of the vegetables.
P.S. be careful, I'm italian :)
Totally agree about the fresh veggies. And yeah, won't take on the risk of discussing food stuff with an Italian ;)
I've used some of these recipes as guidelines before. I think the format is extremely useful.
Most traditional recipes go into too much details, use unnecessarily complicated measurements and ratios, and aren't easy to visually memorize. These gifs or short clips are easy to skim through, easy to memorize and very accessible.
Are they the healthiest, most traditional or best tasting recipes out there? Probably not. Are they a great way to get people to start cooking? Absolutely.
Most traditional recipes go into too much details, use unnecessarily complicated measurements and ratios, and aren't easy to visually memorize. These gifs or short clips are easy to skim through, easy to memorize and very accessible.
Are they the healthiest, most traditional or best tasting recipes out there? Probably not. Are they a great way to get people to start cooking? Absolutely.
Nobody is deriding the format. I think the clichés deserve to be made fun of it a teensy bit[0], but otherwise I agree it's a wonderful innovation, making good use of the possibilities modern media provide. Kinda like explorable explanations[1].
But the medium isn't being criticised, it's the way it is used. And sure, even that can be explained in the context of everything being optimised for drawing attention these days, but that doesn't make it right.
There is nothing about video-based recipes that fundamentally goes against healthy recipes.
[0] https://gfycat.com/HonorableThankfulHeron
[1] http://explorabl.es/
But the medium isn't being criticised, it's the way it is used. And sure, even that can be explained in the context of everything being optimised for drawing attention these days, but that doesn't make it right.
There is nothing about video-based recipes that fundamentally goes against healthy recipes.
[0] https://gfycat.com/HonorableThankfulHeron
[1] http://explorabl.es/
A lot of negativity in the comments of this article here in HN but I feel exactly the same. Tasty recipes have tremendous value because they show that cooking can be easy, that most of the time recipes are just guidelines (with the exception of bakery and a handful of dishes) and that it's ok to experiment and mix different things creatively when cooking.
I blocked these things from Facebook because they were too addictive to watch. The OP article draws a similar comparison that I did at the time: food porn draws on similar urges than those of actual pornography, and it's not good to see too much of it.
I have never heard of buzzfeed tasty before.
You may not be in their primary audience, but they're pretty popular. I just looked at their Facebook page and it has 87 million followers.
I honestly wonder how much of those are not USA or UK.
Just going by my 12 friends who've "liked" the page, 4 are British, the rest from elsewhere in Europe. My friends are about 50:50 UK:rest-EU.
I'm surprised either group bothers with the recipes. The ingredients are American, as are the quantities (pounds/ounces), and the oven temperatures in Fahrenheit. I generally can't be bothered dealing with this, and in search results will prefer a British (or Australian) website to avoid needing to convert anything.
I'm surprised either group bothers with the recipes. The ingredients are American, as are the quantities (pounds/ounces), and the oven temperatures in Fahrenheit. I generally can't be bothered dealing with this, and in search results will prefer a British (or Australian) website to avoid needing to convert anything.
I long for the days when all BuzzFeed content was banned from HN. BF seemed to make a bet on financing a small amount of "real" journalism in order to white wash its incredibly shady and slimy beginnings and it seems to have mostly worked, as people now consider it less of a general sore on the internet (HN now allows certain BF articles, like the one on soundcloud on the front page right now).
Of course, as one could have easily predicted, Buzzfeed has responded by slowly blurring the lines between its "viral" and "long form" content, and given the company's historically unethical control of content by the business side it hasn't surprised me at all to see "sponsored content" show up on the supposedly higher quality articles. I've often wondered, given the investigative bent they've shown how many articles have been quashed due to a timely cheque from a valued advertising partner.
I am quite positive that BuzzFeed's foray into recipes and the culinary world will soon be accompanied by a push with restaurant reviews, exposes on "trending" diets, advice on how twenty-somethings can eat healthy for cheap, etc. etc. This will also probably be given a thin veneer of respectability (i'm guessing a high profile hire or playing up the recruitment of minority writers[0]) until they've captured a profitable demographic and the corporate money starts rolling in. As many have already pointed out, they seem to see no harm in blatantly plagiarizing in order to bootstrap this product.
I guess in the end it's just really surprising to me that people are willing to forgive BuzzFeed for it's past and current crimes (seriously, they're given more leeway than venerable publications like the NYT and Washington Post, not that those publications deserve a pass) and continually compartmentalize parts of an organization that have been demonstrably proven to be ruled by the revenue department. Until people wise up and start wholesale banning all facets of BuzzFeed content they'll continue to get away with it. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.
[0] As a side note, since i'm already kind of ranting, buzzfeed's use of their hiring of minorities as a shield for their dishonest business practices has always tilted me the wrong way
Of course, as one could have easily predicted, Buzzfeed has responded by slowly blurring the lines between its "viral" and "long form" content, and given the company's historically unethical control of content by the business side it hasn't surprised me at all to see "sponsored content" show up on the supposedly higher quality articles. I've often wondered, given the investigative bent they've shown how many articles have been quashed due to a timely cheque from a valued advertising partner.
I am quite positive that BuzzFeed's foray into recipes and the culinary world will soon be accompanied by a push with restaurant reviews, exposes on "trending" diets, advice on how twenty-somethings can eat healthy for cheap, etc. etc. This will also probably be given a thin veneer of respectability (i'm guessing a high profile hire or playing up the recruitment of minority writers[0]) until they've captured a profitable demographic and the corporate money starts rolling in. As many have already pointed out, they seem to see no harm in blatantly plagiarizing in order to bootstrap this product.
I guess in the end it's just really surprising to me that people are willing to forgive BuzzFeed for it's past and current crimes (seriously, they're given more leeway than venerable publications like the NYT and Washington Post, not that those publications deserve a pass) and continually compartmentalize parts of an organization that have been demonstrably proven to be ruled by the revenue department. Until people wise up and start wholesale banning all facets of BuzzFeed content they'll continue to get away with it. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.
[0] As a side note, since i'm already kind of ranting, buzzfeed's use of their hiring of minorities as a shield for their dishonest business practices has always tilted me the wrong way
This (self described) rant seems to miss that news organisations need a business model, and Buzzfeed seems to have found one.
While their listicles etc are still there, the investigative work they do deserves pretty serious credit.
While their listicles etc are still there, the investigative work they do deserves pretty serious credit.
>buzzfeed's use of their hiring of minorities as a shield for their dishonest business practices has always tilted me the wrong way
Do you have more information about this? Sounds pretty gross.
Do you have more information about this? Sounds pretty gross.
Tasty? Never heard of it.
Edit: Some context: https://mic.com/articles/163958/the-secret-ingredient-to-buz...