Comments on: If your news site isn’t social, great design won’t matter

By: Dani Fankhauser

Dani Fankhauser — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:57:16 +0000

One of the classic definitions of news is “what people are talking about.” Thus, social tools are a great gift of digital :-)

By: Greg Ivanov

Greg Ivanov — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:03:13 +0000

Matthew, great piece!

To expound further: beyond the improved navigation, there seems to be quite a lot more wrapped up in the idea of making content truly social. Imagine you could piece together your own version of the NYT and then make that sharable with your friends? There is, it seems, a huge upside in this approach for the publisher: just imagine the sort of ripple effect from empowering readers to curate and promote their own versions of the paper.

http://mediarender.tumblr.com/post/6622484803/opportunities-in-audience-fragmentation

By: jteore

jteore — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:26:40 +0000

USA Today Lacks Twitter Sharing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jteore/5619449595/in/set-72157624707109674

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:06:39 +0000

Thanks, Vadim — I liked your piece at the Nieman Lab. Some great thoughts about the evolution of the story in there. As far as the login thing goes, I think we decided to streamline the process somewhat. We are still evaluating how we approach that.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:04:38 +0000

Thanks, Ann — I am all for editors telling readers what they think they should read, I just don’t think that’s the *only* thing a website like the front of the NYT should do. I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition the way Rutledge makes it seem.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:11:42 +0000

I actually disagree. I like that the Times designs their website for that “unicorn” reader. When I was the home page editor at Forbes, I had a lot of people telling me what they thought I should be putting on our home page, but, here’s the thing: My job wasn’t to listen to them, and my job wasn’t to filter the content for each type of reader. My job was to tell people what they *should* be reading, what they should be worried about, or happy about. And that is what the front page of the New York Times is doing (and should continue to keep doing). In this world where it is so easy to filter your life so that you only hear about the news you want to hear about, we NEED websites like the New York Times and the BBC and other news organizations that TELL us what we should be reading, not recommending what our friends are reading or what some vapid celebrity is reading. Sometimes someone has to stand-up in the middle of the room and act like an adult. That’s what the front page of nytimes.com does.

By: William Mougayar

William Mougayar — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:04:11 +0000

Great analysis, and so true. Cluttered is an understatement for the NY Times website. A return to simplicity would be welcomed.

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:00:58 +0000

Actually, I am going to take a stance that sort of supports what Rutledge was saying. To quote, “News is not social media. If it is, it fails to be news.” He is absolutely right. News is about reporting facts. The social aspect is us sharing those facts. But that’s where my support stops because Rutledge is using an antiquated view of the news to describe how news has evolved. Today’s news is less about facts (because everyone can report on those, even the guy with the camera phone and a Twitter account). What’s become important are the opinions. They are no longer “mutually exclusive” as Rutledge says. They have become intrinsically connected and it is what distinguishes one newspaper from another (and what we are willing to pay for now). What’s most interesting about Rutledge’s position is that diverts into a discussion of what is news/media when he’s really harping on the design of the site and it’s presentation of content. Those, I would argue, are mutually exclusive. The method of presentation is directly related to the type of content (i.e., news vs. video, poetry vs. fiction, magazine vs. blog). As such, he has a very valid point in saying that the design of the NYT site is not conducive to the content type. And he’s right. Many of the news sites are built using the same paradigm as the news paper itself (with everything thrown at you). That’s partly a fault of the web and partly a fault of the NYT designers not thinking outside of the box. Maybe, ultimately, types of content will be better served in different mediums? Flipbook (and dedicated iPad apps) might be the best method for news-like content where as the Web might be better for others.

http://blog.jasonthibeault.com/index.php/2011/07/10/ill-pay-for-opinions-not-news/

By: Sebastian Knowes

Sebastian Knowes — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:32:32 +0000

Manickam I agree with you that too much content can be extremely interesting.

What are your thoughts on news being social media. To me I think there should be a distinct difference in the mediums. There are no regulations for social media as opposed to news sources. How can we factor in the accountability issue. I am not saying that news sources CAN’T use social media but to equate seems to be dangerous. Thoughts?

By: The

The — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:49:18 +0000

I read this article up to “But the biggest blunder Rutledge commits is when he argues that news sites should avoid social-recommendation elements, when the opposite is true.”. This is of course opinion. Your article is based on this opinion being true. Thus, your article is crap.