Core competitiveness of content-based websites

I am not talking about content websites (ICPS), but content-based websites. There are too many websites, which are actually content-based websites. Many functional websites (such as online RSS browsers, such as online extraction) go to the content-based website path: Output Content, get attention, sell ads.
This is because many functional websites of Web have originally started with functions. Today, when they have to face the cold topic of revenue and switch to the advertising model, they still do not forget the power of technology. In July 2005, Liu Ren of Donews wrote a log titled "active websites and dead websites": "There are usually few active websites. Led by programmers and designers, edited by a bunch of dead websites, and led by the editor-in-chief ." I don't know whether IT is intentional or unintentional. He just forgot the flood around him, the best editor in the IT circle.
A website can certainly be regarded as a tool, but it is essentially a media. This natural property cannot be erased by any one. Since it is media, "users will produce content and content will attract users. More users will generate more content, so it is a loop ." (Also from the log of Liu Ren's active website) this operation mode is far from ideal. The rise of the Web2.0 boom in 2005 and the upsurge in 2006. Today, we have to sit down and review: Originally, everything has not changed in essence: focus on advertising.
In content-based websites, the power of editing can almost be seen as the key to determining the victory or defeat of websites. I don't believe in the power of group intelligence, but rely entirely on users to make "everyone becomes an editor" (the advertisement of the online extraction service launched in China ), the result is exactly the final result of this service. Excellent editors know how to plan a topic and attract more attention (not to change the title of an article). In short, they know the taste of the audience. However, I do not believe this. Today, the technology will understand it.
This is an argument that many Geek unconditionally oppose. It's normal because Geek is not a merchant. No matter what kind of technology is built on a commercial website, it is indeed a business, a network operator, audience, advertisers three parties constantly game business. Advertisers do not want to trust websites where "everyone can be my Users. In this age of special subdivision, advertisers prefer to see that my users are fans of ××× products.
How to aggregate these audiences is the responsibility of editing. However, Sina's massive-volume model changes network editing into such a symbol: copy & paste's computer migrant workers. It seems that only middle school students who have a little understanding of Internet technologies can be competent for network editing. The huge Editing Department only exists for the needs of massive information. Let's take a look at the traditional media that some online practitioners think will inevitably die out, especially in magazines. Is editing like this?
The reason why I want to mention magazines is that they are recognized as the most confident media in the market segments in traditional offline media forms. Before the advent of the Internet, classified advertisements were almost the mouth of magazines. In fact, the impact of the Internet on magazines should be very large, because the interaction of the network makes it easier for websites to make articles in segments. However, this is not the case. Too many websites become a newspaper with N versions. It is hard to imagine what kind of high-quality website will be made by a group of new media representatives who only know copy & paste in the past day.