http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2007/narrative_digital_intro.asp?cat=1&media=2

I believe that this study embodies much of what we have discussed thus far in the class, specifically pertaining to web 2.0. The websites that fared based (High Achievers) excelled at allowing the user to customize the website to their liking, including various multimedia choices beyond written text, and allowed the user to participate beyond simply reading the thoughts of others. This is in addition to deep content, branding, and frequency of advertising.

Following our discussions up until this point in the quarter, I’m not surprised at the criteria at which these sites were judged, considering the trends we’ve studied. I’m most interested to learn more about what others think about the importance placed on content depth. For research purposes, I understand the premium that can be placed on robust content. It also seems to me that attempts at deep content can result in “data dumps” and convoluted information. I am also curious as to what the best advertising model is for these websites, and where the optimal point is between frequency of advertising/revenue and frequency of visits.

-Matt McQuade 2/11/2008

I think news web sites can only get so far with frequency of visits, and are looking to emphasize depth of content to get users to spend more time on their sites. I see what you mean about data dumps. One of our biggest challenges at post.com is making it possible for users to easily find the content most relevant to them quickly. We have waaaay to much content to rely on the front door alone; and so we really focus on lateral entry points and making inside pages stickier. But I do think there's something to be said for drawing a balance between breadth and depth of content. I think its easy to over-emphasize breadth in order to net more visits more often, but there's only so much you can grow this way with limited resources. Seems like it makes more sense to narrow focus and do depth, but do it well (trying to avoid the "data dump" dilemna).

One other thing I think we  could do better is to design our sites to seem less cluttered even if you can't do the actual de-cluttering (making some sacrifices here, because you can't promote everything front and center). Or at least create the illusion of a cleaner, more inviting place -- I'd be more inclined to stay longer!

Amanda, 2.12.08

I am in favor of cleaner looking sites. I do think a modern look -- and departures from routine, dull print standards -- creates an inviting element of surprise and draws people in.

A point made in the Poytner "EyetrackIII" reading,  is related: Bigger photos, which do make pages look cleaner, attract online readers more. I also think bigger photos attract people to print. But the print standard has become smaller not bigger -- with postage stamp size weather features on the front page. Now this style is reflexively used online, where the competition for to make eyeballs "stick" is stiff. Failing to exploit the power of photos to attract may be another cyber journalism mistake.

Does this logic seem right to people?  

I was also intrigued by another idea in the State of the News reading that matched a point made by Hank in a conversation earlier today. 

He explained how his newspaper -- the Daily Press in Virginia. -- posts supporting documents with its stories: Linking to a scanned copy of an indictment, for example. Or, a simple police report. Giving people easier access to these public documents is another option newsrooms are not exploiting.

I have often written about news that comes from government or nonprofit reports and studies. Why not post direct links to these report? They are often wordy and make for slow reading. But giving people the option even just to glance at what reporters get to read and examine could draw people in.

This graf from the State of the News reading being discussed on this post makes the same point:

"Sites have done the least to tap the Web’s potential for depth — to enrich coverage by offering links to original documents, background material, additional coverage and more. That suggests that putting things into context, or making sense of the information available, is an area Web journalists still need to work on.

This deficiency may expose the tension between old-style journalism, which sent reporters out to write stories, and technology-based aggregation, which gathers those stories and links via computer algorithm. Building real depth into coverage probably requires people to weave relevant sources of information together and to help consumers navigate and go deeper by themselves."

I am not sure if document posting will get more people to seek out and read news sites, but it might. At the very least, it would add to credibility and eyeball "stickiness." Both virtues are worth cultivating -- in cyber space and on newsprint.

Michelle, 2.15.08