Tell us what you think: any suggestions?
What do you think of the NewsTrust beta site, so far? How can we improve it?
Specifically, which parts off the review process work best for you? Which parts need more work?
How we can enhance the site to make it more useful to you?
We welcome your suggestions.
Specifically, which parts off the review process work best for you? Which parts need more work?
How we can enhance the site to make it more useful to you?
We welcome your suggestions.
Michael Ricciardi
- Jun 27, 2008 10:13 am
(# Total: 282)
I am a subscriber to numerous web newsletters/magazines. One thing that I've noticed with News Trust is that links to articles, such as:
"The Five Secret Billion-Dollar Companies Sucking Obscene Amounts of Taxpayer Money AlterNet - By Nick Turse - Jun. 26 (News Report)
Meet the mystery defense contractors that are raking in billions in taxpayer dollars without notice. "
...that I click on take me to a SECOND page with numerous other articles listed (hyper-linked) but NOT THE ARTICLE I WANTED TO READ. Presumably, if I clicked on the "more" link, I might find the desired article. But, this is yet another step, and I would have to look over numerous other articles to find the one I wanted to read.
I understand the thinking behind this: by delaying my access to the desired article, I might see other articles of interest and read thoes too, etc.
This strategy, however, is not universally used (Scientific American doesn't do it, and the NY Times doesn't do it.). It is actually (unintentionally) insulting to my intelligence; I 'm well aware of other articles (having perused a list of articles to find the one I wanted to read), and know that if I spent more time on the site, I might find other articles to read, etc. The point is I don't have the TIME to do this. When I click on a link to an article, I want to be take TO THAT ARTICLE. I do not want to have to slog through a SECOND list of articles (or third) to find the one I want to read.
This mistaken strategy on your part is, I believe, counter-productive, as someone whom is now familiar with your approach to linked articles, might now hesitate to do so (remembering the last time)--ESPECIALLY if a would-be reader has only a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME to read an article. In short, this 'non-direct linking' strategy WASTES MY TIME and pisses me off enough to not bother checking your newest emails.
If you have chosen this approach because you have so many articles per email to display, and want to maximize the possibility of a reader viewing the maximum number of articles....well, again, I understand, but this must be weighed against the REALITY that a typical reader, a] does not have time for this 'article hunting', b] may already subscribe to other web-lists/newsletters/magazines (thus, there are maximum limits on one's reading time for any given news service), AND c] gets put off by these delay tactics.
So, I have already taken too much of my time to write this email, but I thought I would do so because I appreciate the service that you are trying to offer.
However, if this strategy does not change, it is only a matter of (my valuable) time before I stop opening the emails, and perhaps unsubscribe.
thank you, Michael R.
Links to articles that do not appear
I am a subscriber to numerous web newsletters/magazines. One thing that I've noticed with News Trust is that links to articles, such as:
"The Five Secret Billion-Dollar Companies Sucking Obscene Amounts of Taxpayer Money AlterNet - By Nick Turse - Jun. 26 (News Report)
Meet the mystery defense contractors that are raking in billions in taxpayer dollars without notice. "
...that I click on take me to a SECOND page with numerous other articles listed (hyper-linked) but NOT THE ARTICLE I WANTED TO READ. Presumably, if I clicked on the "more" link, I might find the desired article. But, this is yet another step, and I would have to look over numerous other articles to find the one I wanted to read.
I understand the thinking behind this: by delaying my access to the desired article, I might see other articles of interest and read thoes too, etc.
This strategy, however, is not universally used (Scientific American doesn't do it, and the NY Times doesn't do it.). It is actually (unintentionally) insulting to my intelligence; I 'm well aware of other articles (having perused a list of articles to find the one I wanted to read), and know that if I spent more time on the site, I might find other articles to read, etc. The point is I don't have the TIME to do this. When I click on a link to an article, I want to be take TO THAT ARTICLE. I do not want to have to slog through a SECOND list of articles (or third) to find the one I want to read.
This mistaken strategy on your part is, I believe, counter-productive, as someone whom is now familiar with your approach to linked articles, might now hesitate to do so (remembering the last time)--ESPECIALLY if a would-be reader has only a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME to read an article. In short, this 'non-direct linking' strategy WASTES MY TIME and pisses me off enough to not bother checking your newest emails.
If you have chosen this approach because you have so many articles per email to display, and want to maximize the possibility of a reader viewing the maximum number of articles....well, again, I understand, but this must be weighed against the REALITY that a typical reader, a] does not have time for this 'article hunting', b] may already subscribe to other web-lists/newsletters/magazines (thus, there are maximum limits on one's reading time for any given news service), AND c] gets put off by these delay tactics.
So, I have already taken too much of my time to write this email, but I thought I would do so because I appreciate the service that you are trying to offer.
However, if this strategy does not change, it is only a matter of (my valuable) time before I stop opening the emails, and perhaps unsubscribe.
thank you, Michael R.
Walter Cox
- Jun 30, 2008 7:13 pm
(# Total: 282)
Okay, I've had a few weeks now to read your submissions. And they seem to me to be relentlessly leftward leaning. After a while that gets tiresome, because if you are always turning left you are going in circles.
How about a little balance?
P.S. No non-left articles I have submitted have been posted.
Leftward ho, always left
Okay, I've had a few weeks now to read your submissions. And they seem to me to be relentlessly leftward leaning. After a while that gets tiresome, because if you are always turning left you are going in circles.
How about a little balance?
P.S. No non-left articles I have submitted have been posted.
Melva Hackney
- Jun 30, 2008 8:31 pm
(# Total: 282)
There are countless sites and TV programs that go only in extreme tight-right circles. Perhaps you would feel more at home interacting with them? I'm going to assume that you are not suggesting that there should be no 'seemingly' leftward sites for like-minded, interested people to meet and share news that interest us...
Rightward leaning
There are countless sites and TV programs that go only in extreme tight-right circles. Perhaps you would feel more at home interacting with them? I'm going to assume that you are not suggesting that there should be no 'seemingly' leftward sites for like-minded, interested people to meet and share news that interest us...
Mike LaBonte
- Jun 30, 2008 8:37 pm
(# Total: 282)
Hi Walter,
The left/right balance is something that NewsTrust has been brainstorming about for some time. It's just that more people from the left seem to show up and submit stories. No one wanted it that way. The NewsTrust crew has been actively inviting people from the right all along. The policy is to be as neutral as possible, since the focus is simply on good journalism.
In 2006 54% of voters went Democrat and 42% Republican. It may be that any web site attracting a random sample of members will start to tilt left, and that reinforces itself. So we actively work to maintain balance.
Maybe you can help by submitting more right viewpoint stories, and bringing in more people. If it's good journalism it should get good reviews at NewsTrust.
By "posted" I assume you mean some of the stories you submitted did not get the minimum 3 reviews to appear on the front page. Please don't be discouraged, many of my submissions never make it that far. NewsTrust needs more reviewers. Hopefully you can help.
about balance
Hi Walter,
The left/right balance is something that NewsTrust has been brainstorming about for some time. It's just that more people from the left seem to show up and submit stories. No one wanted it that way. The NewsTrust crew has been actively inviting people from the right all along. The policy is to be as neutral as possible, since the focus is simply on good journalism.
In 2006 54% of voters went Democrat and 42% Republican. It may be that any web site attracting a random sample of members will start to tilt left, and that reinforces itself. So we actively work to maintain balance.
Maybe you can help by submitting more right viewpoint stories, and bringing in more people. If it's good journalism it should get good reviews at NewsTrust.
By "posted" I assume you mean some of the stories you submitted did not get the minimum 3 reviews to appear on the front page. Please don't be discouraged, many of my submissions never make it that far. NewsTrust needs more reviewers. Hopefully you can help.
![[F]](/Images/i2/site.gif){kind=small}
Home 
About Tell us what you think: any suggestions?
To post a message, compose your text in the box below, then click on Post My Message (below) to send the message.
You cannot rewrite history, but you will have 30 minutes to make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click on the Edit button which follows your message after you post it.