Comments on: How newspapers can flourish online http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/07/01/how-newspapers-can-flourish-online/ Can you think of a better name? Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:25:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Peter Hadzipetros http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/07/01/how-newspapers-can-flourish-online/comment-page-1/#comment-62667 Peter Hadzipetros Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:12:08 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=481#comment-62667 Aw, shucks. You make me blush! Aw, shucks. You make me blush!

]]> By: heri http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/07/01/how-newspapers-can-flourish-online/comment-page-1/#comment-697 heri Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:05:21 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=481#comment-697 ok. you win. ok. you win.

]]> By: Fagstein http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/07/01/how-newspapers-can-flourish-online/comment-page-1/#comment-693 Fagstein Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:42:11 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=481#comment-693 I should rephrase #13 a bit. "Leave your archives online". I'm not talking about stories from 1982 that you'd need to hire someone to type in. I'm talking about stories from two weeks ago that you put online just to delete it a few days later. And good stories (I'm thinking more feature stories and stuff that doesn't date itself so easily) are useful. It also related to #4. Word of mouth takes a while. A blog posts a link, another blogger reads that blog and posts a link, and this process repeats itself as others hear about the story and read it. If it's a particularly good one, this process might go on for weeks, and by then the paper will restrict access to it. Just yesterday a friend asked me to look up a story that was eight days old and had been taken off the newspaper's website, even though it wasn't outdated at all. I think there's definitely a market for leaving stories online once they're posted. And what does it cost? I should rephrase #13 a bit. "Leave your archives online". I'm not talking about stories from 1982 that you'd need to hire someone to type in. I'm talking about stories from two weeks ago that you put online just to delete it a few days later.

And good stories (I'm thinking more feature stories and stuff that doesn't date itself so easily) are useful.

It also related to #4. Word of mouth takes a while. A blog posts a link, another blogger reads that blog and posts a link, and this process repeats itself as others hear about the story and read it. If it's a particularly good one, this process might go on for weeks, and by then the paper will restrict access to it.

Just yesterday a friend asked me to look up a story that was eight days old and had been taken off the newspaper's website, even though it wasn't outdated at all.

I think there's definitely a market for leaving stories online once they're posted. And what does it cost?

]]> By: princess iveylocks http://blog.fagstein.com/2007/07/01/how-newspapers-can-flourish-online/comment-page-1/#comment-692 princess iveylocks Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:21:18 +0000 http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=481#comment-692 #1 is so true... I just don't visit websites like the G&M (who often indexes paid content as free) anymore, because nothing I like is free, and navigating through the dross for second-rate stuff is not worth my time. I think you're exaggerating #6... anyone with half a brain can find "Montreal Gazette" via a search engine. Besides, being portrayed as part of a larger press organization is not only accurate, but attractive to the owners of these conglomerates. With the proliferation of syndicated content, it doesn't really matter whose page you're on. It's all the same AP/Reuters/CanWest crap anyway. #8 -- why are you not using Adblock software in your browser? I thought you were tech-savvy? #9 -- yes, this is tiresome. I actually don't want bigger graphics or more pictures, I want easily-accessible information. Taglines have become noticeably shorter, or removed completely, in new designs that focus on white space (not so much a virtue off the page, people...scroll scroll scroll...), and cutesy little headlines tell me nothing about whether I want to click on the damn story or not. Another major G&M redesign flaw. #10 -- I have no interest in reading a newspaper-sponsored blog. No way. The only for-profit blogs I read are owner-operated (i.e., not subject to editorial control) and rely on ad revenue or product sales for their income. Given the incredibly half-assed job most reporters do of writing and researching actual articles, paying them to scrape shit off their asses and hit "post" is obscenely wasteful. (I will make one exception -- the folksy-yet-scientific vibe that people like Peter Hadzipetros emulate is hot.) #13 -- my understanding is that this is quite time-consuming and expensive. Realistically, Steve, where is the demand for this service? I would rather see a sleek, functional website than one that's clogged with reams of outdated content. Aside from historians and archivists (who surely can access older materials easily via more traditional methods), this seems like a personal vendetta on your part. Not everything can and should be online. Visit a library, I hear the "book" format is quite the popular form of data storage. #15 -- hear, hear! #1 is so true... I just don't visit websites like the G&M (who often indexes paid content as free) anymore, because nothing I like is free, and navigating through the dross for second-rate stuff is not worth my time.
I think you're exaggerating #6... anyone with half a brain can find "Montreal Gazette" via a search engine. Besides, being portrayed as part of a larger press organization is not only accurate, but attractive to the owners of these conglomerates.
With the proliferation of syndicated content, it doesn't really matter whose page you're on. It's all the same AP/Reuters/CanWest crap anyway.
#8 -- why are you not using Adblock software in your browser? I thought you were tech-savvy?
#9 -- yes, this is tiresome. I actually don't want bigger graphics or more pictures, I want easily-accessible information. Taglines have become noticeably shorter, or removed completely, in new designs that focus on white space (not so much a virtue off the page, people...scroll scroll scroll...), and cutesy little headlines tell me nothing about whether I want to click on the damn story or not. Another major G&M redesign flaw.
#10 -- I have no interest in reading a newspaper-sponsored blog. No way. The only for-profit blogs I read are owner-operated (i.e., not subject to editorial control) and rely on ad revenue or product sales for their income. Given the incredibly half-assed job most reporters do of writing and researching actual articles, paying them to scrape shit off their asses and hit "post" is obscenely wasteful.
(I will make one exception -- the folksy-yet-scientific vibe that people like Peter Hadzipetros emulate is hot.)
#13 -- my understanding is that this is quite time-consuming and expensive. Realistically, Steve, where is the demand for this service? I would rather see a sleek, functional website than one that's clogged with reams of outdated content. Aside from historians and archivists (who surely can access older materials easily via more traditional methods), this seems like a personal vendetta on your part. Not everything can and should be online. Visit a library, I hear the "book" format is quite the popular form of data storage.
#15 -- hear, hear!

]]>