Great moments in Web design

And by great, I mean “Holy hell, New York Daily News, why are you looking to MySpace and Photobucket for design tips!”


Click to enlarge

I really don’t think background ads, like this one for Life On Mars, are effective. Sure, it’s “noisy” and obvious, but it’s also absorbed into the overall design of the page, so rather than an eye-catching ad, it just looks like lousy design, leading to unconscious resentment by your users. Sort of like when the air pressure drops and you get a headache but can’t figure out why.

(h/t dan360man)

Ben Eason encourages not-so-creative loafing

Earlier this week, Creative Loafing, the parent company of alt-weeklies like Washington D.C.’s City Paper and the Chicago Reader, filed for bankruptcy. The go-to source for the background on this is this story in Atlanta magazine.

How this will affect the Reader remains to be seen, but this excerpt doesn’t bode well:

In fact, in his memo to employees, Eason said he wants to “get us quickly to a daily publishing web company that happens to have a weekly print publication that is a reference point for the web.” To staffers, Eason has been holding up the Huffington Post’s Chicago website as a model. It has one employee, who essentially sifts through every media outlet in Chicago for the best stories and then links to them. He’s a filter of content, but not a creator of one. Eason is in awe of the model.

Eason sees his papers doing something similar, but it “doesn’t mean we give up on original content.”

I know as well as anyone how difficult it is to make a site feel vibrant on a daily basis, when it’s largely dependent on weekly content. And I’m glad that linking to external sites is no longer seen (by most, anyway) as the great traffic-killer it once was. But remaking your site into a blog of blogs in order to do it, isn’t the answer.

First, that kind of curation takes time. When you link to a site, you’re essentially telling your readers “This is worth your time” unless context says otherwise. It requires reading, reporting and analysis, not just random posting alongside a pretty picture. You can say it won’t take away from writing and producing original content, but unless you expand your staff – and most newspapers and magazines aren’t in a position to do that – it’s a zero-sum game. If I had the kind of talented staff that Eason has at his disposal (and at TOC, we do), I’d rather have my writers working on providing more analysis and reporting.

Which brings me back again to Chuffpo.

When you do what ChuffPo does, you need to link to the heater stories, the ones that get people clicking. But when you do that, you end up repeating much of what people find elsewhere, which robs your site of distinction. So you need to provide your readers with something they can’t get elsewhere. Again, I’m not saying that being an aggregator of content is a bad idea. Some of the sites I read on a daily basis do just that. But my appetite for sites like that is limited. At this point, I don’t find myself needing another one, particularly one that doesn’t seem to have its own voice. (Despite my clear obsession with it, ChuffPo still hasn’t made it into my RSS feed.)

To be fair, ChuffPo does publish original content – of questionable veracity and quality – but it’s largely dependent on writers from other publications, who can depend on their full-time gigs for income. The only reason this model works is because the Huffington name can lure those folks to post for free and the Huffington money can bankroll it through any rough ad waters. It’s not a model that one should adopt in favor of something that already works. I can’t speak to the other Creative Loafing properties, but the Reader already has several blogs I consider daily destinations that are more akin to the spirit of blogging than anything I see on ChuffPo. (Their attribution tactics alone confuse even the sharpest readers, Roger Ebert, for example.)

Eason does have a point though: Readers ARE interested in what their favorite writers read. But the reason that interest is stoked in the first place is because their writers ARE writing. They get a sense of what these people are like through their analysis and the topics they cover. It makes them want to know more.

Plus, the tools to do these sort of things – direct your readers to what your writers are reading – already exist with sites like Delicious and GoodReads (in fact, the TOC blog contains links to both for our Eat Out and Books editors, respectively).

When ChuffPo launched, I said that Chicago didn’t need more sites that do the same old thing. It needed sites that cover topics that aren’t covered elsewhere, backed up by pick-up-the-phone reporting and good writing. (We’ll be getting more of that when Eater and Curbed finally launch next week.) At some point, if everyone’s linking, but no one’s producing original content…well, there won’t be much worth linking to anymore.

How do you watch live events?

With the debates and the Playoffs on this week, I was wondering about the level of personal engagement people have with others during major live events.

For instance, I purposely stayed home during the Sox final clincher game against the Twins because I wanted to be able to swear at the TV and act up without the judgment of those around me. I was at work during the game yesterday, but am considering leaving early to hole up in a bar to watch the 2nd playoff game against the Tampa Bay Rays. If Sunday’s game is another do-or-die, I’ll probably stay home again, but the farther along we get in the Playoffs, the more I’ll want to be around other people.

But…I did use Twitter during those games to enhance the shared misery and joy.

For the debates, I almost never want to be out. It’s fine for me to make sardonic comments, but hey you, buddy? I’m watching the future of our country over here, keep it down, uh?

But again…Twitter has actually enhanced my enjoyment of the debates. Some of my friends are their own mini-Truth Squad, others drop Dorothy Parker-level bon mots at every opportunity, and still others just offer a sense of the communal. (Though I know at least one casual Twitter-using friend of mine has reported being overwhelmed by the level of Tweets coming into his phone.)

There are definitely some times when I want to be “alone” and able to control my immediate environment, but lately I’m more and more drawn to using Twitter to still get analysis, camaraderie and information about a live event.

How about you, avid/casual Twitter users? Who else is using Twitter during live events? And are there ever events when you wouldn’t want to use it?

Just because it's online, doesn't make it journalism

There’s a lot more going on with Alana Taylor’s post at MediaShift than I have time to get into here, but this post by the PBS ombudsman deals with some of it (even as it utilizes possibly the least essential subheds ever). There’s still a lot of bias against reporting news online in academia, mostly due to ignorance. So I admire Taylor for the futurist that she is.

But in pointing out the speck of wood in NYU’s eye, she fails to notice the plank in her own. In this post, she says: “These days anyone who has access to the internet is, in fact, a journalist because they are inputting information that — for someone, somewhere — is newsworthy.”

What she should have said was this:

“These days anyone who has access to the internet has the potential to be a journalist because they are inputting information that — for someone, somewhere — could be newsworthy, provided it’s reported in a way that has journalistic context.”

Re-reading Taylor’s original post about her class and using Pew Research Center’s guidelines for journalism, it’s pretty clear her post fails on points 3 and 4, even as it succeeds on others.

I’m not one of those people who thinks blogs or online reviews are damaging journalism – the two can co-exist peacefully – but journalism isn’t just publishing information that may be of interest to other people. It’s also about doing right by the subjects of your reportage. Had Taylor published her story on her own blog, she’d have been free to exercise her opinion however she likes. But in the same way that putting on a cape doesn’t make me a superhero, publishing something online (or even on MediaShift) doesn’t make it journalism.

FOLIO Presentation: Training Non-Digital Staff

Here’s the presentation I gave at FOLIO.

A couple notes/warnings:

Due to A) Only having a week’s notice and B) being insanely busy with Time Out Chicago‘s cultural heroes package, the PowerPoint presentation below is…unfinished, let’s say. It’s stuck somewhere between “complimentary to the live presentation” and “a substitute for the live presentation,” which is no way to be. I also need to add notes so that the slides that are mainly amusing pictures to hammer home whatever verbal point I’m making have some context.

Plus, I’m not a fan of PowerPoint or slide presentations in general. I would have rather gotten up there and just given my presentation without it and spent more time on Q&A, especially since I ended up flubbing the pace.

But in the interest of all the openness I talked about this afternoon, here it is. I’m also publishing it here publicly – under a Creative Commons nd-sa license – so it’ll force me to go back and make edits in the near future.

* Addendum: Upon further reflection, let me give myself a little credit: I had a good handful of people come up to me afterwards to chat and say how they’d be taking what I said back with them to put into practice. And I noticed smiles and scribbling pens during my time so it must have gone pretty well. But I generally look at things I need to improve, rather than what I did well, so that accounts for the Debbie Downerisms above.

Still the best thing I've ever done in any workplace ever. *

This has been a stressful week at work, due largely to a big online project I’m working on in conjunction with next week’s issue. Look for it on the site on Wednesday.

This package has a lot of video components to it, so I needed to grab a piece of code we used when I created the Indiana Jones vs. Megatron video over the summer. I ended up re-watching that clip, and decided to post the embedded version here. Enjoy.

http://tony.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/tony-pub01-live/current/toccenter1/tocCenter01/client/embedded/embedded.swf

Sometimes I think I have everyone fooled.

* Er, when I used to work on a crisis hotline that helped runaway kids get home to their parents? That was probably better in terms of making the world a better place. But this probably wins in the “Best Use of Video – Wanting Not To Laugh But Being Unable To Stop Yourself” category.

A.J. Pierzynski: Futurist

From this New York Times article:

Pierzynski said that when people asked him about a possible Chicago-Chicago finale, he advised caution.

“I’m like, ‘You don’t really want that to happen because the city would just probably explode,'” Pierzynski said. “And no one would be able to go to work. No one would be able to do anything because there would be fights every day at work, and just because it’s so passionate and the fans are so amazing.”

Smart and punchy, that’s our A.J.!

I have a copy of When Chicago Ruled Baseball on my shelf, so I took a quick look at the index to see if past performance might be indicative of future events. There isn’t anything in there about fights or other workplace incidents, but I don’t think for a minute that A.J. is wrong. If your workplace is anything like mine, the election is already putting a drag on productivity. If both teams – or, frankly, even just the Cubs – get into the playoffs and/or the World Series, I think Chicago’s going to see its own economic slowdown.

Odds and ends

A few bits of news and views:

* Yesterday I was invited to speak at next week’s Folio conference to fill-in for a speaker who – I’m assuming – had to drop out. It’s not an exaggeration to say I feel honored to be a part of this event, especially considering the caliber of the speakers. I will be giving a talk called “Training Non-Digital Staff” as part of the Folio: Digital track. Every day seems to provide a new lesson for me in how to do this, so I think I’ll have plenty to say.

* The promoter’s ordinance is hitting the news again. See my post on the TOC blog for details. There are also some great posts there about David Foster Wallace, SNL’s Sarah Palin/Hillary Clinton sketch, the Bears and other city goings-on.

* What the hell is Facebook thinking? It makes sense to not allow users to create accounts solely for applications. Their service – and user base – obviously thrives because it is a reflection of the real-world relationships that people have. But guess what? People in the real world have solid relationships with people they’ve never met. Up until last month, I’d never met the people I work with day-in and day-out in New York. Those relationships were forged thanks to the Internet. I have many other relationships in my work and personal life that are largely maintained via the Internet. This customer service response makes Facebook sound like people who talk about online dating sites as if they are nothing more than a haven for crazies and freaks. It’s not reflective of…well, the real world.

* Last night I went to the social gathering for the Chicago New Media Summit. As I wrote last week, I think the way they went about organizing and creating this event was flawed, but I still wanted to support what they were doing. So I payed my $20 at the door – I never did feel right about handing over my credit card info to Google Checkout’s terms of service – and went on it.

For me, the gathering was both fun and rewarding. First: Open bar and several good noshes (I’ve never had jumbo soft pretzels at at an event like this and hope to again one day). Second: I had at least three conversations that will turn into working relationships that will either further the goals I have for myself or TOC‘s site. And I met a bunch of other really solid people. You can’t ask for more from a networking event than that.

But I talked to several people there who were disappointed with the CNMS for varied reasons. Some felt the talks during the day were too basic. I think this is because the CNMS is trying to speak to many different segments of the local tech and media communities, from biz types who have a solid business model but need some education about social media to social media gurus who want to find out about new technologies or learn best practices from the people at the top of the field. There’s still a need for an event like this to bring varied people together, but the education portion of the day needs to be tracked. Perhaps as the event grows – and they impose fewer restrictions on their speakers – they’ll be able to get more presenters to make this possible.

Others also expressed dissatisfaction with the top-down nature of the organization, and the difficulty in acquiring information about the event (this last point was expressed by one of the smartest “new media” guys I know, so if he’s having trouble, what hope is there for the rest of us?). I touched on these points in my previous post, so I won’t enumerate them again, but I’m clearly not a lone dissenting voice in the wilderness. Nor are any of us against the idea of the CNMS, we just take issue with the execution. (No posts on your blog since August 2nd?)

Today is the 2nd day of the event. If the CNMS wants to continue as a going concern, it’s going to have to be a lot more grass roots-focused. They’ve showed they have the connections to get the money and sponsors, which is admirable and shouldn’t be discounted. But they need more butts in the seats (last night’s 1000 capacity social event topped out at about 200 by my count) and the best way to do that is to reach out to the folks that run blogs here in the city (I’d be happy to give them the list). Chicago supports its own, as long as you treat them as contributors and not revenue streams.

The other 10 percent of search?

Earlier this week, Google’s Marissa Mayer said that search was “90% solved.” Later in the week, she clarified that the remaining 10 percent was going to require 80% of the work.*

After sifting through the rubble of the Google vs. TribCo fight this week (that resulted in United stock tumbling from $12 to $3 in a scant fifteen minutes) it’s obvious that part of that 10% is going to be figuring out how to prevent problems like this from recurring.

In a perfect world, search engines and aggregators are amoral. They only re-broadcast the information that is out on the Web. If the information is tagged or dated incorrectly, the fault lies with the source, not the aggregator. But if the aggregator decides to make an assumption and modify the data, the fault indeed lies with the aggregator.

“Best practices” is one of those biz phrases that gets abused, but it’s not yet to the point where it’s useless. News sites ought to make sure they put a date on every story, and aggregators and bots ought to skip those stories that don’t. Agreed? I’m sure there’s an argument against this solution, but it’s not coming to me right now. Then again, I’ve had a couple glasses of wine so…

By the way, TribCo: You guys didn’t really “warn” Google to stop trolling your sites, did you? I can’t imagine that’s something The Colonel would countenance.

* If search is 90% solved then how come 80% of sites do such a lousy job with it?** Raise your hand if you ever spent 15 minutes searching a site for an article you knew was there only to go to Google, pound out a few keywords, and find the article within seconds? Yeah, me too.
** Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. Shut up.