> 1. TechCrunch is now 22 times more prolific than its founding year

> TechCrunch now covers 10 times more seed-stage startups

quantity != quality

It used to have a lot less noise/signal ratio on TC, it used to have decent quality posts (and editors), and a TCrunched effect that barely exists now since a post gets buried quite fast given the post rate.

These days getting mentioned on TC doesn't do/mean much, you end up between a new iphone speculation or some non-story about [insert web giant here].

Those aren't even the important numbers. With 22x the number of articles and the ratio of small and mid stage startup to tech giant articles half of what it used to be, even finding the articles in the noise is a joke.

Then, once found, we have to deal with the quality problem you mention.

TechCrunch left my reading list almost a year ago for these reasons.

What do you use then to just keep yourself aware of new startups coming up? I am not looking for sites like BothSidesofTable and others from VCs or Cofounders. I am looking for a site that jusat tells me X is a cool service that does this and launched last week.

Sites like Startupli.st and betali.st have too many useless (sorry to those working hard at them) sites which makes it difficult to go and check each one of them.

So yes what other sources exist to get a superficial overlook of new startups.

I can't answer for SoftwareMaven but I use the same sources as where I get my news, such as HN. Any startup worth its salt is content marketing, blogging, podcasting, or whatever, and its stuff comes up on sites like HN.

That said, sites like ReadWriteWeb and Mashable also cover the beat well.

That's what I suggested with the quotes, at this rate startup news will drawn. But fortunately we have way more (quality) startup news sources these days.

Hi, I'm the article author. I agree getting in TechCrunch does not mean as much today as it used to. The SEO does help and if the article highlights strong growth, I've seen how it can attract investors/hires.

I do hope TC invests more in quality posts. Otherwise I think it risks being just a disseminator of news instead a creator of one.

Hi,

I am not sure about SEO exposure from TC, it certainly helps, but I would guess it is not as important as it used to be.

More quality posts wouldn't be enough imho, they should probably have/use more sub sites for what we consider noise and have the main site only talk about startups and related stories (maybe try to limit the number of stories per day, working a bit like a real newspaper in this respect). But it will probably never happen since it means less ad revenue.

Maybe it is too late anyway, I would guess the audience has changed a lot since it has broaden its topics selection, it wouldn't be considered a good judge of talent anymore, and I guess it isn't their primary goal anyway.

I'd read a seed-stage only TechCrunch...is there some way to filter TC to do this?

Try http://thestartupfoundry.com/

Excellent analysis and something that well quantifies a general feeling that long-term TC readers have had.

The real takeaway for me though that you found a creative way to get your startup on Techcrunch and probably get a lot more eyeballs than just your press pitch may have received.

Techcrunch isn't really about startups, it's about companies in this technology generation. Whether they're new or old doesn't really matter, "Startup" is just the hip term of the moment. It'll die eventually.

I'm unclear what you mean by the "hip term of the moment". You are aware that that term has been in use for at least 30 years, and most likely longer, right?

And yes, TechCrunch started as being about startups.

The term in relation to technology. It seems 90% of what people now refer to as a "startup" is a dumb website that someone made in a couple of days that has no real business behind it and will never be anything more than a dumb website. People will eventually stop calling every damn thing on the internet a startup and it'll have meaning again.

Techcrunch covers technology, not "startups", it covers big companies (Google, Apple, Microsoft etc.) actual start ups and other technology stuff. The same is here at HN, a lot of what is posted here as a "Startup" isn't and it's people just using the term because it's hip. Like "app" and "social media", it's a fancy term people like.

Agreed. I am also not a fan of using "startup" as a strict noun. I think of it more of an adjective. That is, companies can be in their "startup" phase. Too many people consider startup as a business category in and of itself.

Moreover, even useful websites do not constitute a business, startup or otherwise. I'm sure there are plenty of nascent businesses that techcrunch would never cover just because they are not web-centered [citation needed].

I feel punked. The picture explaining their classification of startups has a blue underlined sentence. Clicking it just opened the picture, instead of bringing me to a list of top 100 sites as declared by google.

Sorry, TechCrunch asked for JPEGs instead of tables and that link stayed in the original table. The JPEGs are also low-quality so I'm going to try creating higher-quality ones next time.

You should go with PNG instead of JPG, it's more readable since it avoids artifacts when text is present on the image.

Thanks for the advice. I'll look at sending PNGs next time.

Sacrificing quality for profit works in the short and maybe mid term. Long term they'll lose their core audience and be replaced.

Why are Android and iOS are categorized as companies, separate from Google and Apple respectively?

TechCrunch uses tags for companies and a few products. Android and iOS were so common that I included them to give a sense of what TC covers within those companies.

Short answer: no