Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Dave Lee
Is this you? Claim Profile »
5 months ago
in Keep a list of websites with your will? on The Evolving Newsroom
This is something that makes me wonder, too. I did a piece about it for the Guardian... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/0...
Seems of all the soc-networks, only LiveJournal had something in place to deal with user death.
Seems of all the soc-networks, only LiveJournal had something in place to deal with user death.
1 reply
Julie Starr
Yes I saw your piece and linked to it a while back. Do these sites need to ask us what we want to happen to our account when we die and maybe give us a couple of options? Like, would you like your account deleted immediately, after a month, a year? Would you like us to do nothing until we hear from your lawyer? Would you like us to post a message on your site letting people know, if so, what message?
8 months ago
in Figuring out the building blocks of news communities on The Evolving Newsroom
One intriguing thing I noticed about NZ was that Bebo was the dominant social network for young people. Over here, Bebo isn't too popular. It lost out to MySpace, and has now been beaten by Facebook.
It made me realise that any online community -- much like those in real life -- is only as good as the people in it.
Wikipedia is the great triumph of the internet age. If you'd suggest to any businessman that millions of people would want to edit an encyclopaedia in exchange for nothing, and that millions more would rely on that information, they would laugh in your face. And yet it works.
YouTube is another one. So many other video sites have failed to beat it. Why? Because despite having better technology (YouTube seems a bit naff sometimes when compared to vimeo or blip), what no-one else can replicate is that the best videos are being uploaded there.
In my opinion, communities only work if the contributors see a gain for themselves. In traditional media, the gain is money. In new media, the gain appears to be the sense of 'giving back'. Naive as that may be, I do believe a lot of users tirelessly edit wikis or upload videos because they know it is improving a great resource that everyone can enjoy.
Recently I made a couple of changes to the Cambridge United wiki entry. There was no great need, but seeing that part of it was inaccurate made me want to change it. I think by doing so I repay some of the trust I've put in other users to edit accordingly on other articles.
The question is, can newspapers ever get the same sort of community interaction? Will users of newspaper sites ever take pride in collaborative products like a wiki? I fear not. And I think newspaper execs should hold their horses when it comes to investing in services like MyTelegraph.
Newspapers should be information wholesalers. They should draw in professional, reliable information, and spread it out to the masses using websites, print editions, RSS, Twitter ... everything.
As long as readers see newspapers as a product they pay for, they'll be less likely to want to help it create content. Why should they? The 'feel good' factor of contributing to an open source discussion is lost when you look around and see nothing but adverts.
It made me realise that any online community -- much like those in real life -- is only as good as the people in it.
Wikipedia is the great triumph of the internet age. If you'd suggest to any businessman that millions of people would want to edit an encyclopaedia in exchange for nothing, and that millions more would rely on that information, they would laugh in your face. And yet it works.
YouTube is another one. So many other video sites have failed to beat it. Why? Because despite having better technology (YouTube seems a bit naff sometimes when compared to vimeo or blip), what no-one else can replicate is that the best videos are being uploaded there.
In my opinion, communities only work if the contributors see a gain for themselves. In traditional media, the gain is money. In new media, the gain appears to be the sense of 'giving back'. Naive as that may be, I do believe a lot of users tirelessly edit wikis or upload videos because they know it is improving a great resource that everyone can enjoy.
Recently I made a couple of changes to the Cambridge United wiki entry. There was no great need, but seeing that part of it was inaccurate made me want to change it. I think by doing so I repay some of the trust I've put in other users to edit accordingly on other articles.
The question is, can newspapers ever get the same sort of community interaction? Will users of newspaper sites ever take pride in collaborative products like a wiki? I fear not. And I think newspaper execs should hold their horses when it comes to investing in services like MyTelegraph.
Newspapers should be information wholesalers. They should draw in professional, reliable information, and spread it out to the masses using websites, print editions, RSS, Twitter ... everything.
As long as readers see newspapers as a product they pay for, they'll be less likely to want to help it create content. Why should they? The 'feel good' factor of contributing to an open source discussion is lost when you look around and see nothing but adverts.
1 reply
Julie
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comment. Like you, I sometimes contribute to community efforts online for no reason other than it feelsgood to 'give something back', to contribute to something that I think's worthwhile. Same thing that motivates people to fundraise for charity, I guess, or join the local conservation society or volunteer on sports days.
It's a good question about whether newspapers can ever get real community traction. I don't know the answer but I reckon it depends on what kinds of communities they try to build.
The LATimes Wikitorial effort shows building communities around editorial opinion doesn't work. But what about building a community around a local beat or on a hyperlocal news site? If it's specific enough, and the community gets a useful resource that builds up over time (maybe like a knol), would people be motivated enough to contribute to it?
What about all those people who tut about the media today and opine about what journalists should and shouldn't be covering, and who they should and shouldn't be talking to... is there a way to harness their energy in sourcing and developing stories?
That said, I take your point about people not wanting to contribute to something over which they have no editorial control, which is littered with ads and which other people make money out of .
Interested to know why you think MyTelegraph-style services should be avoided. It's brought an awful lot of highly engaged readers to the parent site...
Thanks for your comment. Like you, I sometimes contribute to community efforts online for no reason other than it feelsgood to 'give something back', to contribute to something that I think's worthwhile. Same thing that motivates people to fundraise for charity, I guess, or join the local conservation society or volunteer on sports days.
It's a good question about whether newspapers can ever get real community traction. I don't know the answer but I reckon it depends on what kinds of communities they try to build.
The LATimes Wikitorial effort shows building communities around editorial opinion doesn't work. But what about building a community around a local beat or on a hyperlocal news site? If it's specific enough, and the community gets a useful resource that builds up over time (maybe like a knol), would people be motivated enough to contribute to it?
What about all those people who tut about the media today and opine about what journalists should and shouldn't be covering, and who they should and shouldn't be talking to... is there a way to harness their energy in sourcing and developing stories?
That said, I take your point about people not wanting to contribute to something over which they have no editorial control, which is littered with ads and which other people make money out of .
Interested to know why you think MyTelegraph-style services should be avoided. It's brought an awful lot of highly engaged readers to the parent site...
9 months ago
in Will newspapers stop publishing on Mondays and Tuesdays? on The Evolving Newsroom
I remember reading a similar prediction about more newspapers going weekly as times get harder. Personally, I can only see it helping if REAL money is put into those papers. In other words, for Sundays (assuming you meant Sunday would be the day of publication for the weeklies) to succeed we need to see unique stories. Investigations, exposés, interviews and features. All these things cost a lot more than hard news -- especially when a lot of it is syndicated copy from the likes of Telegraph Media Group and the LA Times (this being my major criticism of the NZ press. I don't want an American or British article leading my international section. I want to know what the news means to Kiwis).
Sadly, I'm sure if, say, Fairfax axed the Herald for six days a week, they wouldn't take all the save money and put it into the new weekly. No. They'd consider it money saved and not invest it at all.
Sadly, I'm sure if, say, Fairfax axed the Herald for six days a week, they wouldn't take all the save money and put it into the new weekly. No. They'd consider it money saved and not invest it at all.
1 reply
starrjulie
I take your point about whether such a move would result in real investment in the rest of the paper (and, importantly, in the online offering). As you say it would be nice to see more unique stories, investigations and with any luck more stories from under-represented areas like science.
But I think there's merit in the idea of a weekly paper and vastly increased online and mobile offering. Simply because busy lifestyles mean many of us only have time to read the headlines each day and sit down for an analytical read on the weekend.
I know what you mean about not wanting to see LA Times and Telegraph syndicated copy in the foreign sections here, and was a bit puzzled by it myself when I first got back. But I can see the argument for it - cost effective and they are well written stories on subjects unlikely to be explored by local writers (owing to lack of budget if nothing else). I quite like a foreign perspective now and then, too, albeit preferably balanced with some local perspective.
I'm sure Fairfax would love to axe the Herald given that they are competitors!
But I think there's merit in the idea of a weekly paper and vastly increased online and mobile offering. Simply because busy lifestyles mean many of us only have time to read the headlines each day and sit down for an analytical read on the weekend.
I know what you mean about not wanting to see LA Times and Telegraph syndicated copy in the foreign sections here, and was a bit puzzled by it myself when I first got back. But I can see the argument for it - cost effective and they are well written stories on subjects unlikely to be explored by local writers (owing to lack of budget if nothing else). I quite like a foreign perspective now and then, too, albeit preferably balanced with some local perspective.
I'm sure Fairfax would love to axe the Herald given that they are competitors!
1 year ago
in My Three Rules of Blogging on Learn To Duck
Great tips! Although I wouldn't take the first one too literally... I think it's always good to keep in mind who your audience is, and why they enjoy your blog.
Not to mention the legal perspective of pretending you're only writing for yourself.
I'm sure that's not what you meant, though, so I'll just say I agree with all three. Especially number 2... I always try and push this point as much as I can to new bloggers.
Not to mention the legal perspective of pretending you're only writing for yourself.
I'm sure that's not what you meant, though, so I'll just say I agree with all three. Especially number 2... I always try and push this point as much as I can to new bloggers.
2 replies
micah
Thanks. #1 is mostly around the idea of "message posts" or writing
directly to a specific audience. At the end of the day, I personally
really just write stuff that I am proud of and am okay with, even if
others might not agree...
directly to a specific audience. At the end of the day, I personally
really just write stuff that I am proud of and am okay with, even if
others might not agree...
jyoseph
Great tips indeed!
I have to agree with Dave a little on #2. Although good general advice in theory, in practice it's probably a case-by-case deal.
One case is the "photoblog" community if you're not posting "one a day" you lose a little bit of your street cred, silly I know. I used to keep up but as you said in #1, I started writing for myself and tried not too worry about frequency. Since then I enjoy posting more.
It's a double-edged sword though, if you're a new blogger, you have 5 posts and you haven't written in 2 weeks then someone browsing your site may pass it up unless they see something in your small collection of writings they find interesting.
I guess the middle ground would be, post frequently enough to have fresh content but not to the point where you're compromising the quality of your content.
Very inspiring post though, thanks for sharing your 3 secrets! *goes to write them down*
I have to agree with Dave a little on #2. Although good general advice in theory, in practice it's probably a case-by-case deal.
One case is the "photoblog" community if you're not posting "one a day" you lose a little bit of your street cred, silly I know. I used to keep up but as you said in #1, I started writing for myself and tried not too worry about frequency. Since then I enjoy posting more.
It's a double-edged sword though, if you're a new blogger, you have 5 posts and you haven't written in 2 weeks then someone browsing your site may pass it up unless they see something in your small collection of writings they find interesting.
I guess the middle ground would be, post frequently enough to have fresh content but not to the point where you're compromising the quality of your content.
Very inspiring post though, thanks for sharing your 3 secrets! *goes to write them down*
1 year ago
in Mindy McAdams: Post-grads are a waste of time on Press Gazette
I always think it's a question of whether you want to learn about journalism, or if you want to learn to be a journalist. BIG difference.
You can talk about journalism all day... doesn't make you a journalist, though. Not by a long way.
You can talk about journalism all day... doesn't make you a journalist, though. Not by a long way.
1 reply
Martin Stabe
I wouldn't paint all post-grad courses with that brush. I did a post-grad journalism course (yes, at City, Ben) and we didn't just talk about journalism (except, ahem, in Prof Greenslade's bit).
That said, I didn't study journalism as an undergrad and did wait a couple of years before going back to do the course at City.
You could make a case against undergraduate journalism degrees, too. I can't quite work out what on earth you would study on a three-year journalism degree. Study economics or something for three years, then go do journalism on a short post-grad course.
That said, I didn't study journalism as an undergrad and did wait a couple of years before going back to do the course at City.
You could make a case against undergraduate journalism degrees, too. I can't quite work out what on earth you would study on a three-year journalism degree. Study economics or something for three years, then go do journalism on a short post-grad course.
