Joho the Blog
|
|
|
« Malaysian blogger brought in for questioning || Back to Blog | [wk] Whose news? Introductions... » March 02, 2005
The NYTimes.com site is re-fashioning itself, launching in April. That's what Robert Larson, director of product management and development of NYTimes.com, told me when I interviewed him for the issue of Release 1.0 that came out last week. (Here's the article's first section.) They're doing something bold and important, which I think may mark a turning point...but perhaps not the one NYTimes.com envisions. The NY Times famously moves stories from their original links to new ones in the for-pay archive after a week. As a result, important stories exit the public sphere, and the newspaper of record becomes the newspaper of broken links. [See "Note on Links" at end.] So, starting in April, NYTimes.com is going to publish thousands of topic pages, each aggregating the content from the 10 million articles in its archive, going back to 1851, including graphics and multimedia resources. [NOTE: They are not opening their archive. The content will likely be descriptions created for the Times Index; you'll still have to pay to see articles in the archive.] Topics that get their own page might include Boston, Terrorism, Cloning, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Condoleeza Rice. News stories will link to these topic pages. And — the Times must hope — these pages, with their big fat permanent addresses, may start rising in Google's rankings. I think this may bring about two crises ("crisis" in the old sense of crossroads): First, if the topic pages don't give away enough information, if they have too many enticing links that make us pay $2.95 to retrieve the article, they will position The Times as a hoarder rather than as an authority; initially, they are thinking about publishing the summaries written for The Times Index, not the archived articles themselves.* It's crucial to our trust in newspapers that we feel they are on our side, working to make us all better informed; it will be a sad day for the mainstream media when we lose that sense. Second, the first comparison we're all going to make is to the Wikipedia page on the same topic. My guess is that, while nothing can duplicate The Times' 150 years of cultural artifacts if they're made freely available*, we're going to find the Wikipedia page more useful, more current, more neutral, and more linked into the Web. If we don't, we'll edit the Wikipedia page until it's better. And then we'll link it to the NYTimes.com topic page. In this head-on comparison between what the best of the closed systems can do with what the newest of the open systems comes up with, you'll hear the groan of the hawser as the ship of trust changes berths. *[I added these two phrases after sleeping on it.] Note on links: Thanks to Dave, the Times does offer bloggers a way to link to articles without having to pay the archive fee, but this only works for articles published after May 5, 2003. Plus, it's hackier than most non-techie bloggers are going to put up with. Of course Jay Rosen's piece on the NY Times' acquisition of About.com definitely will be on the exam.... Posted
by D. Weinberger at March 2, 2005 11:52 PM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference The news from NYTimes.com:
» Coming soon - the New NYTimes.com from Joi Ito's Web Tracked on March 3, 2005 12:30 AM
» NY Times to open archives? from Gen Kanai weblog Tracked on March 3, 2005 02:36 AM
» NYTimes to open the archives from house of warwick Tracked on March 3, 2005 10:31 AM
» NYTimes reorganizes content into "Topics" which then point to paid archvies from Matt McAlister Tracked on March 3, 2005 04:06 PM
» Weinberger und Wired: Vertrauensmacht Wikipedia from netbib weblog Tracked on March 3, 2005 04:19 PM
» New York Times gets topical. from larry borsato Tracked on March 3, 2005 08:06 PM
» Newspaper Tech Coverage in Turmoil from Media Guerrilla Tracked on March 4, 2005 02:12 AM
» NYTimes.com content wall starts to fall down from Roland Tanglao's Weblog Tracked on March 4, 2005 02:24 AM
» New York Times - Stupid, stupid, stupid.... from Threadwatch.org Peter Da Vanzo points to Joho's Joho's [Read More] Tracked on March 4, 2005 05:30 AM
» New York Times Going For Google Gold from UtterlyBoring.com Tracked on March 4, 2005 03:46 PM
» NYTimes.com archives makeover? from MediaMusings Tracked on March 4, 2005 11:26 PM
» NYTimes.com archives makeover? from MediaMusings Tracked on March 6, 2005 02:45 PM
» If the New York Times were smart... from Epistemographer Tracked on March 7, 2005 01:01 AM
» A modest suggestion for the New York Times... from Epistemographer Tracked on March 7, 2005 01:20 AM
» A modest suggestion for the New York Times... from Epistemographer Tracked on March 7, 2005 01:21 AM
» Ontologically speaking from Telepocalypse Tracked on March 9, 2005 12:24 PM
» NYTimes to build content using it's archives from radioToManila Tracked on March 20, 2005 08:06 PM
» Point / Counterpoint from 90% Crud Tracked on September 12, 2005 06:44 PM |
Comments
Obligatory link to the New York Times Link Generator:
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
Posted by: Joost Schuur | March 3, 2005 02:11 AM
A face-off between an entity that freely grows in understanding and expertise over time, and another entity that stores pellets of static info, of historical interest, apparently more committed to online branded retailing than to offering persistent bases of knowledge we need. hmm.
Posted by: tom matrullo | March 3, 2005 07:41 AM
Bravo and extra points to David for plopping down the word "hawser."
Posted by: Brendan Greeley | March 3, 2005 11:59 AM
"They are not opening their archive. The content will likely be descriptions created for the Times Index; you'll still have to pay to see articles in the archive. [...] And — the Times must hope — these pages, with their big fat permanent addresses, may start rising in Google's rankings."
Yeah, because, as everyone knows, Google so loves keyword spammers.
Posted by: Branko Collin | March 3, 2005 03:33 PM
If the topics pages are worthwhile, people will link to them when mentioning those topics. That's not keyword spamming. It's what google values.
Posted by: David Weinberger | March 3, 2005 03:55 PM
I vibrate in harmony with Matrullo's sarcasm, as always, although the real tragedy of the thing is that the Times, like a lot of news organizations, just doesn't value its human capital properly.
It's still true that if all current Times staffers won the lottery and had the leisure to do nothing but work on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be stellar and original rather than merely interesting and useful. They've got a gazillion years of collective experience chasing facts 24-7-365, of course they'd be better at it.
Not being able to look into the back catalogue of a journalist whose work catches one's eye keeps readers from developing loyalty and trust in that person's integrity, professionalism, judgment and purple prose ("hawser," heh). It's not the content, stupid, it's the human being from whose experience and discipline it flows that's important. Hey, I bought Dave Weinberger's book despite the dumb title and inane jacket blurb ( ;-) ) because I read his blog and decided there was evidence of intelligent life.
It's such a drag for journalists to only be able to have their body of work collected and surveyed in an underground "clipshere" of scissored-out newsprint stuck into a scrapbook. I bet the Times' "content managers" would like to get a handle on THAT content leakage as well. Rights-managed paper that dissolves within 24 hours of the cover date or explodes when contacted by cutting edges and glue? I guess the argument is that the archiving and distribution system needs to pay for itself, whereas you are still free to consult the microfilm in the public library. But still. Yeesh.
Posted by: Colin from Bklyn | March 4, 2005 06:43 AM
Here is an, already existing, NYT aggregate page where the articles are free and that I refer to all of the time.
Making Votes Count; An archive of editorials on the flaws in the mechanics of our democracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/making-votes-count.html?pagewanted=all
I fully understand the Times need to create revenue streams from its core product. (I still get royalty checks for reprints of pictures that I took twenty years ago.) But they are competing with libraries where you can get the article for the price of a xerox copy. They are fighting the flow of the internet which has no qualms about copyright. In the mean time thousands of opportunities go by each day for people to refer to a NYT article, which brings the Times traffic, because the person is not willing or able to buy an article for personal reference.
The Times, I think, would do themselves a big favor if they made the articles free for personal reference use, free for linking to but charge for newsletter of professional reprint rights.
Articles available on the site would draw much more traffic if there are people all over linking to them as free articles.
If the articles are free for linking to people have less incentive to steal the article when they can simply link it with credits and give the Times the traffic.
Posted by: Pat Rogers | March 4, 2005 08:48 AM
I think Colin is correct to see the potential in the Times. Imagine what a resource it would be if, instead of making its bored writers produce, each day, yet another performance of its product, it used its undisputed talents to build a news wikipedia for instant consultation - on breaking news, background, historical context, what have you. The shame of USian media - not just the Times - is that instead of thinking about what News is for - of its true entelechy (which involves liberal dreams of community, mutual understanding, perfectability, etc.) - we set about trying to invent pretty packages that tease us into paying, and then, after some days, paying again if we NEED information. It is truly insane, this pretension to being Necessary, Socially Relevant, and Objectively True, at the same time that you're essentially acting like two-bit stripper gouging bleary johns for chump change.
Change the order: Become freely Necessary and organically relevant, and the $$ will follow.
Posted by: tom matrullo | March 4, 2005 01:03 PM
I don't quite understand...what's the novelty of this "innovation?" That NYT will present a bit more information about specific articles in its archives but still not provide a link to the entire article (unless you pay)?
There are now a number of ways to circumvent this stupid NYT policy. Besides the Userland link mentioned by Dave (& I completely disagree that this is technically challenging to people--it's a piece of cake), you can also subscribe to your local library's electronic database search, which will usually include a whole range of periodicals including the Times. Thus, you have free access. The only problem here is that you would have to copy the article & upload it to your site if you wanted your readers to also be able to view it for free).
Finally, someone provided me with an even easier way to gain free access to NYT articles. Because of the origin of the tip, I'm not revealing it publicly. But if anyone wants it, send me an e mail.
Posted by: Richard Silverstein | March 4, 2005 04:52 PM
free-babystuff.com
free baby stuff, get free baby stuff, free baby stuff in canada, free stuff online, get free stuff online, baby accessory, baby bed, baby furniture, baby diaper bag, baby clothes, baby stroller, baby free stroller, baby blanket, baby toys, baby shampoo, baby oil, baby cream diaper rash, free baby toy, free baby clothes, free crochet baby clothes, free baby furniture, free baby bed, free crochet baby blanket, free stuff for new baby, free newborn baby stuff
carinsurancegroup.info
car insurance rate, online car insurance rate, cheap car insurance rate, car insurance, low car insurance, auto insurance quote, car insurance rate quote, auto cheap insurance, auto insurance company, online car insurance, online auto insurance quote, car insurance policy, online car insurance policy, car insurance, insurance policy online, car insurance online, free online car insurance quote, auto insurance policy online, free car insurance quote, affordable car insurance, car insurance group, car insurance price, car insurance price quote, car insurance rating group, auto cheap insurance
getfreemp3music.com
free mp3 music, free mp3 music download, free mp3 music download site, free downloadable mp3 music, free mp3 music downloading, download totally free mp3 music, mp3 music free download online, download mp3 music free unlimited, free mp3 music online, download free mp3 music song, download free mp3 music new, mp3 downloadable free download music, absolutely download free mp3 music, free downloadable music for mp3 players, download free mp3 online, free online mp3, mp3 music free download online, free mp3 song online, download free mp3 song online, free mp3 software download, download free mp3 music software, mp3 music download software, mp3 player software download, free mp3 ringtone, download free mp3 ringtone
Posted by: free baby stuff | June 6, 2006 05:13 AM
Very good article and simple website. Too bad you dont have a spam filter! The post above me is full of shit.
Posted by: Little Money | January 22, 2007 01:08 AM