Actually, you’d be surprised at what kind of impact can be had through Lifehacker-type articles. Dust specks if sufficiently large in nature are impactful, after all.
Dust specks don’t cost a person time to consume. The also have no opportunity cost. Your articles on the other hand might have opportunity cost.
Furthermore it’s not clear that the articles have a positive effect.
As an aside the article’s do have SEO advantages through their links that are worth appreciating even if the people who read them are’t affected.
We have evidence that they are, as described in my comment here.
I don’t see evidence that you succeed in getting people to another site via your articles. Do you have numbers?
I describe the numbers in my comment here about the only website where I have access to the backend.
Compare the article I put out on Lifehack to other articles on Lifehack. Do you think my article on Lifehack has better return on investment than a typical Lifehack article?
Dust specks don’t cost a person time to consume. The also have no opportunity cost. Your articles on the other hand might have opportunity cost. Furthermore it’s not clear that the articles have a positive effect.
As an aside the article’s do have SEO advantages through their links that are worth appreciating even if the people who read them are’t affected.
I don’t see evidence that you succeed in getting people to another site via your articles. Do you have numbers?
I describe the numbers in my comment here about the only website where I have access to the backend.
Compare the article I put out on Lifehack to other articles on Lifehack. Do you think my article on Lifehack has better return on investment than a typical Lifehack article?