[Gymngatagaica]

I don't get your premise. Some independant websites like Yahoo and Google do really well, and so they incorporate. Therefore, they no longer count as independent website.

So if you do well, you don't count. If you don't do well, you go out of business and don't count.

Therefore, unless there is a perpetually mediocre website out there somewhere, the answer to your question must necessarily be: No.

[Abedgebeefs]

Plato summs it up best.

Gee, Apolyton will be 10 years old soon.

[Rurcextedutty]

Originally posted by PLATO
I would imagine that an independent website, as you define it, would last as long as the owners were willing to support the associated costs. I guess that is the answer for any media - I guess my question is, could such sites becomes "institutionalized" in such a way that they may switch onwers (or to compare to other media, producers, or editors) and continue on.

I think this and Zkribber's point bring up issues with the original definition in the question. While still leaving out the Google's or Yahoo's, could something like say, SLATE, last as long as regular printed magazines? (Many magazines or newspapers being owned by large media corporation, but not corporations of their own.)

[kazinopartnerkae]

Well, Apolyton did ... so, the answer to your question is yes

[V8V8V8]

Correct not like the NYT. It will only be around as long as the owner's enjoyment of the site outweights paying to keep it up.

[sbrthrds]

It's a hint that you need to get on your knees and your hands dirty to keep posting here.