For Lack of a Better News Site
“Sigh”
The emotion that I feel every time I click a link on a site and discover a “this article was not found” or “this article has been purged from the free news archive.”
Likely the best news site around is MSNBC. Its templates stay in-sync (unlike CNN, though I suppose for archival sake, it could be a good thing, too), it has recent stories and related specials in the sidebar, and those wonderfully illogical addresses (read on).
- Beautiful addresses are always in style
Let’s look at a sample article, “Grass fire burns homes in Oklahoma, Texas”: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10619217 — that address isn’t going anywhere. If we were to use CNN’s model, the address might be something like http://msnbc.msn.com/US/2005/12/27/grassfire.texas.oklahoma — now seriously, that one might make more sense, but it’s no easier to remember. Also, the grassfire might spread to another state, making the original address illogical or force the article’s maintainer to change it, causing linkrot. - It has video!
This is a spreading trend — and a good one. Unfortunately, there are still sites that only offer video for a limited amount of time. This is downright unnacceptable. If a website provides a service, there is an unspoken commitment to continue that service. If a video is posted today, it should be accessible in a week, in three months, and in 50 years. On that front, I’ve been impressed with the new local CBS sites’ video functions. They have a dandy Adobe Flash-powered video player attached to the relevant article and a link to all recent videos. See this article for an example. (The reason why the CBS sites weren’t my favourite news site(s) is simple: file extensions in the address and a past of betraying old addresses.) - Find creative ways to pay the bills
Now really, does anyone pay US$2.75 (Star Tribune) to read an old article? I’m fine with newspapers forcing you to buy an internet subscription for articles that were not originally online (like New York Times’ archive for the early-to-mid-twentieth century), but, again, if an article goes online, it needs to stay there. I was unable to write a blog article because Star Tribune had purged the story to which I would have referred from its free news archive. If something needs to be done to generate money, why not force a 30-second advertisment? This works nicely for Salon.com, and always provides an incentive to pay for the premium version. - Let us talk
This is surprisingly uncommon on news sites, though I don’t see the harm in it (as long as it’s placed on the bottom of the article and does not intefere with its content): discussion. Sites like News.com use this and I find it genuinly useful. - Back away from the flashing advertisements
Have you ever tried to read an article while a flashing orange Vonage ad is attacking your eyes? Ads pay the bills, but when they interfere with the intended service, they go too far. If they really need to be that flashy, I’d prefer they expand when the page is first loaded, do their whole shabang, then tastefully minimise and let User get down to business - You’re not that important
As I mentioned earlier, CNN is far too presumptuous with its search. Their primary goal should always be searching their own content. On that same note — search sucks on these sites. CNN’s is downright cryptic: I have better luck typing in my search at Google and telling it to search cnn.com. MSNBC’s works, but seriously, what’s up with those search addresses (they leech off the main MSN Search)? You’re a big boy now, and you can have your own search; not only does come off immature, it’s confusing: if one modifies the search query by clearing the field and retyping, it’ll search the entire web! Give me a plain old search. - Unite.
Small news organisations (like Northfield’s Northfield News) do not usually have the resources to run proper news sites. What I think would be an ideal solution is a central network run by a larger organisation like CNN or MSNBC. Small-town folk would put their articles up, be able to categorise them, and they would receive their own site. In return, CNN (let’s say), would be able to reprint the articles dynamically on their own site. So, a user from Northfield could have all of her news — on a local, state, national, and international level. The ad revenue could be split between CNN and the small-town paper.