Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#71

Post by knowtheory » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

jasoncartwright wrote: post #49

ryandrake wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Lack of a real technical / engineering department. Having said that, their core business is news and they really just need a functioning website, not a full (and expensive) engineering department. I agree with the rest of your points but this one doesn't really make sense. My guess is it would take fewer engineers to make these websites better. The horrible parts of newspaper websites are the pop-ups and broken…

Slight aside: Django came out of a local newspaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)#History

Right, and it's still sad to say that they capitalized on that fact so incredibly poorly that the following came to pass:

https://twitter.com/jacobian/status/1012781017940316161

> The Lawrence Journal-World, where Django was created, is now a Wordpress site. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2018/jun/26/redesign-ljworld/

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#72

Post by majewsky » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #51

ape4 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't experts at tech but are the best a local news, politics, crime, etc

Not sure I'd agree with that. I'm no fan of crime documentaries or political coverage, but it seems almost guaranteed that there are better sources for those things online, at least if you know where to look and how to vet whether someone's an expert. It's just easier for people here to tell they're not experts at tech because people here are more knowledgeable about tech than they are politics or crime. (There's als…

So basically you don't need newspapers if you have all the qualifications to be your own journalist?

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#73

Post by vntok » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #54

vntok wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics. Please see our Terms of Service, Digital Products Terms of Sale and Privacy Policy for more information. Well, yes, and that's an opt-in.

It's not an opt-in if it's a condition of using the service. If "by using this you agree to" is an opt-in, then the definition of opt-in is meaningless. The "opt" stands for optional. This wording is not describing an optional feature.

You are not obliged in any way to use the service. It is purely optional. If you choose to use it, you consent to some things.

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#74

Post by notatoad » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

TekMol wrote: post #11

lllr_finger wrote: post #7

I worked for a media conglomerate for several years on several high volume media sites. The GMs and POs that I came across often had a great sense for what made user experiences great, but those would take a back seat every single time for revenue opportunities. A company wants to do an ad takeover for the sites and slather sidebars/banners/popups everywhere, Ad Ops wants to sell a new module in the right rail, Outbr…

AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen How about making the site fast and usable in the first place?

that would be awesome. but how do you expect it to happen?

AMP is actually making news easier to read in a real practical way right now. sitting back and suggesting we throw it away in exchange for idealistic nonsense that has been proven not to work by the last 20 years is not making anything better.

I'd love for AMP to be replaced by something better. but "just make nice websites" is not better. it's the status quo, and it sucks.

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#75

Post by TangoTrotFox » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #42

samspenc wrote: post #4

I actually did some freelance website development for a local newspaper website around 15 years ago. I can't speak for larger newspapers, this was my experience with a much smaller one. The biggest challenges I found were: 1. Lack of a real technical / engineering department. Having said that, their core business is news and they really just need a functioning website, not a full (and expensive) engineering departmen…

> 1. Lack of a real technical / engineering department. Having said that, their core business is news and they really just need a functioning website, not a full (and expensive) engineering department. I agree with the rest of your points but this one doesn't really make sense. My guess is it would take fewer engineers to make these websites better. The horrible parts of newspaper websites are the pop-ups and broken…

I think, like the article hits on, this comes down to the fact that users have a rather different definition of "functioning website" than advertising driven news sites do.

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#76

Post by IshKebab » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #13

lllr_finger wrote: post #7

I worked for a media conglomerate for several years on several high volume media sites. The GMs and POs that I came across often had a great sense for what made user experiences great, but those would take a back seat every single time for revenue opportunities. A company wants to do an ad takeover for the sites and slather sidebars/banners/popups everywhere, Ad Ops wants to sell a new module in the right rail, Outbr…

You don't need AMP, you just need PM's with the ability to grasp the tradeoff between more ads and less users as a result of that. Obviously it's not an easy thing to decide, but they should be trying to measure that because I can't handle this crap either. TV is dying because it's jammed full of annoying commercials. And it's getting worse as they are dying.

You do need AMP though because you don't get a little lightning bolt and special placement in results if your site is just fast but non-AMP. That is probably one of the scummier things Google does at the moment. I'm surprised they haven't been sued over it yet.

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#77

Post by expertentipp » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

annabellish wrote: post #69

gameswithgo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 15 years ago the main misunderstanding would be that web pages have to able to flow around the dimensions of the window that the user has chosen. You can't fix things in particular places as newspaper people would be used to. I imagine today people are more familiar with that concept.

>I imagine today people are more familiar with that concept. You... would be surprised. I've been asked to implement "pixel perfect" designs on mid-six figure projects, and explaining that that isn't how the web works can be fruitless when their background is in traditional media.

Oh boy, the "pixel perfect" storm period couple of years ago. Luckily I waiter it over on cozy position without a need of looking for a job.

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#78

Post by joegahona » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #68

vntok wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, it is way more optimized for mobile usage than trimming down your website, it brings better placement in search results and it is backed by the leading search engine itself, thus ensuring your team is not wasting resources trying to guess how Google works and how to exploit it.

> it brings better placement in search results This is the only reason anyone bothers with AMP. And the reason Google does that--and the only reason Google pushes AMP at all--is so that they can become an intermediary between the publisher and their customers. If you're concerned about walled gardens, and you think AMP is the solution, I'd suggest you're not thinking clearly about what AMP actually is.

> it brings better placement in search results

Recent data suggests otherwise: http://blog.chartbeat.com/2018/08/23/research-study-1-3-publ...

What AMP does is allow product ppl to use Google's authority to cut out all the script crap that Sales lobbies for, even if they have to lie a bit.

I.e., "If we don't do AMP, we'll make Google mad and sink in organic rankings" is a much stronger argument than "We ought to remove all these modals and trackers and stuff because no sane user wants this crap thrown at them."

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#79

Post by marssaxman » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #74

TekMol wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen How about making the site fast and usable in the first place?

that would be awesome. but how do you expect it to happen? AMP is actually making news easier to read in a real practical way right now. sitting back and suggesting we throw it away in exchange for idealistic nonsense that has been proven not to work by the last 20 years is not making anything better. I'd love for AMP to be replaced by something better. but "just make nice websites" is not better. it's the status quo…

I've never encountered an AMP site so far as I know, but the real practical way I make news easier to read is to put everything in reader mode. Simple, straightforward, lightweight, ad-free, does not depend on cooperation from the server.

Re: Why Are Newspaper Websites So Horrible?

#80

Post by forapurpose » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

CM30 wrote: post #51

ape4 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't experts at tech but are the best a local news, politics, crime, etc

Not sure I'd agree with that. I'm no fan of crime documentaries or political coverage, but it seems almost guaranteed that there are better sources for those things online, at least if you know where to look and how to vet whether someone's an expert. It's just easier for people here to tell they're not experts at tech because people here are more knowledgeable about tech than they are politics or crime. (There's als…

> there are better sources for those things online, at least if you know where to look and how to vet whether someone's an expert

What if someone did that for you, as a full-time professional job, and did it both online and offline? What if they actually spoke directly to the participants, from senators to the bus driver in the crash to the head of safety at the regulatory agency; and what if they interviewed leading experts and engineers; and read the court filings, etc. What if they made it their life's work to become expert in that kind of research?

That might be worth a few bucks a day. And it would be far more valuable than idle commentary from bloggers and commenters.