|
Wenesday, January 23, 2002
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Wenesday, January 23, 2002
started 1/23/2002; 9:20:48 AM - last post 1/26/2002; 1:04:44 AM
|
|
Doc Searls - Wenesday, January 23, 2002 
1/23/2002; 1:20:48 PM (reads: 4523, responses: 4)
|
|
Whacks poetic 
Discontent
| | Is it worth lost opportunity for full stature in the Reference Section for Civilization that the Web in fact is, to bury the Times' archival stories where they can only be found by people who pay for them? |
| | The Times, like all papers, is worth full value on the day it is printed. After that it's fishwrap. |
| | Still it's hard for publishers to get their heads around the fact that what makes their 'content' valuable isn't its nature as a commodity (which the contemptible term 'content' implies), but its timeliness, its authority, and its expression (on paper, today, on doorsteps and on newsstands). That's it. Everything else is gravy. The Times will be worth more as a paper if its archives are exposed on the Web — far more, even in the $millions, than the paper is making by selling old stories for $2.95 apiece. |
| | Another suggestion for Martin: drop the membership/authentication thing. It's a pain in the ass, does nothing for readers and, I suspect, does little in reality for NYTd. |
| | I say this as somebody who pays for the daily paper, even though I also get it for free on the Web, and even though I think Martin's people do a terrific job on the Web. |
| | And I live in California, by the way. |
Meat
| | Mike is looking again into the issues of Responsibility and blogging. He's good at that shit. I think again it's a lot like ham radio: a lot of conversations about this and that, interrupted by calls to Serious Work nobody else is as well-positioned to do. |
Belated rollery
| | I somehow neglected to roll the latest JOHO, which points to this in its Anals of Marketing feature. Which is funny as shit, so I'll probably plug it in Linux Journal. |
Cluelog
If you care enough to mail the very beast
| | Jeremy White of CodeWeavers, who is a lead hacker on the Wine Project, suggests we exercise our rights — nay, our responsibilities — under the Tunney Act, to submit our opinions about the feds proposed settlement with Microsoft. He's got a point and makes it well. Read it. |
Hello?
| | Bubba Blog's referer log says people are arriving from google searches that come up as mailtos when you click on them. Also that searches for his blog on Google get sent to mine. I'm sure that's an inbound link quotient algorithm thing. |
discuss
|
|
Bubba - Re: Wenesday, January 23, 2002 - Hello?
1/23/2002; 3:25:16 PM (reads: 448, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I figured it out. Looks like a bug, er... feature. For example, search for an E-mail address on Google, say doc@searls.com, then click on one of the resulting links to this weblog. The referers page will display the refering address, but I guess since there is an address in the refering URL, it appends the "mailto:" to the link.
Oh, and on the other thing, I meant that a search for my name brings up links to Doc's blog. Just because my name is on it somewhere. I should really put my name on my blog...
Hey, why won't this damn thing let me delete my own posts? (Sorry for the duplicate)
Bubba
discuss
|
|
Bubba - Re: Wenesday, January 23, 2002 - Hello?
1/23/2002; 3:28:03 PM (reads: 484, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I figured it out. Looks like a bug, er... feature. For example, search for an E-mail address on Google, say doc@searls.com, then click on one of the resulting links to this weblog. The referers page will display the refering address, but I guess since there is an address in the refering URL, it appends the "mailto:" to the link.
Oh, and on the other thing, I meant that a search for my name brings up links to Doc's blog. Just because my name is on it somewhere. I should really put my name on my blog...
Hey, why won't this damn thing let me delete my own posts? (Sorry for the duplicate)
Bubba
discuss
|
|
Dori Smith - Re: Wenesday, January 23, 2002
1/24/2002; 1:36:06 AM (reads: 972, responses: 1)
|
|
|
The Times, like all papers, is worth full value on the day it is printed. After that it's fishwrap.
Which is why I've long had the opinion that the Times has it backwards: they should put today's issue up at a premium price, and make all the back issues free.
If you're poor or cheap, wait a day, and you can read today's news for nothing.
I don't get the dead-tree version of the NY Times only because I don't want to deal with that much paper hanging around the house. If I had to pay to read today's issue on the web, though, I might actually cough up the money.
discuss
|
|
Phil Wolff - The NY Times Archives Should be Free?
1/26/2002; 5:04:44 AM (reads: 689, responses: 0)
|
|
|
The Times, like all papers, is worth full value on the day it is printed. After that it's fishwrap.
It depends on the market niche. Your fishwrap is another person's data buffet. Researchers use "the paper of record" and other newspaper archives for legal citations, competitive anad industry analysis, public policy analysis and formulation, medical research, etc. The value for these audiences is not news freshness. It is the search engine: the accumulation, the compendium, the correlation and relevance, the longitudinal view. And it is knowing that their source is known for journalistic quality and integrity.
The publishers' problem is whether the segment of serious legal, corporate, and academic researchers can be offered one product at one price while offering the same archives to the public at large for free. Where is the money? Where is growth? Where are the self-reinforcing behaviors, the virtuous cycles?
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
