>>5393767 (lb)

Publishers/reporters will sometimes republish data without new timestamps to make it appear 'evergreen'. I assume that she has posted this same tweet before. She (@seungminkim) appears to give some instruction on how to get good results in this tweet:

"Evergreen tip: Shorter, sharper questions usually yield better answers."

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1085262634709106693

https://digiday.com/media/publishers-evergreen-content-strategy-make-the-old-new-again/

Led me to this. Looks to be a tool that reporters use for content analytics

https://www.parse.ly/

https://blog.parse.ly/post/1348/how-to-work-smarter-not-harder-with-evergreen-reporting/

and I found this

https://evergreen-ils.org/about-us/

>>5394320

>Evergreen

Write SEO evergreen articles now, get page views – forever

Learn how to identify commonly searched questions and topics you can answer with an article that will get you search engine traffic over weeks, months or even years.

https://ona18.journalists.org/suggestions/write-seo-evergreen-articles-now-get-page-views-forever/

>>5394327

I'm with you. I think that the whole post was simply a mistake made on the move while phonefagging. 8ch txt> 8ch > 8ch> FUCK txt(delet last)

>>5394515

>>5394320

>>5394340

>>5394362

>>5394464

I think that this evergreen tweet is just some reporters/writers commenting on what they consider 'evergreen' content. They ARE mostly reporters/writers right? How many pageviews do these authors get off of Q? Is Q evergreen content?