4 ms·

This article was disappointing. I was expecting slightly more in-depth analysis into the workings of Craigslist and instead I got a rant about Newspaper websit

by physcab 17y ago

This article was disappointing. I was expecting slightly more in-depth analysis into the workings of Craigslist and instead I got a rant about Newspaper websites.

hswolff 17y ago
Thank you for saving my 1-full WSJ article per day allotment on this article.
- hga 17y ago
  Anytime ^_^. The general trick is to search for a substring using Google and then click off of the search page; the pay wall isn't in place if the referring web site is Google.
lionhearted 17y ago
Funny, I came in expecting very little and was pleased with the article. A few quotes: > Indeed, I submit that it's hard to look at virtually any news site out there and not notice how its architecture and presentation differ from that of Craigslist, which has several times any news site's number of users. > So it's not surprising that the single most salient weakness of a mainstream news site is that in the end it is a corporate showcase, a striking contrast to the Craigslist model. The vocabulary of the architecture speaks plainly that the page is there to serve not readers, but to articulate the structure of the company behind it. > That architecture is depressingly similar. The typical news site doesn't take advantage of the wide horizontal window of the browser. Instead, it is framed inside a square or vertical box. And inside that frame, the reader is presented with four or five—and sometimes even seven or eight—horizontal lines of information or navigation before the first actual story headline appears. > Ultimately, I would like about 99% fewer navigation links on the page, but will settle for 90% fewer. For that service, a newspaper site can hit me with all the ads it wants, or charge me any amount of money. But until it provides this simple and I think obvious service to readers, one can't help suspecting that a newspaper's approach to the Web is incomplete. Some very good design points there, and those are just a few sentences I chose. I learned a little bit, so I think this one is worth the short read.
alxp 17y ago
If you are interested in how Craigslist works on the technical side you should listen to episode 199 of the Hanselminutes poscast where the host talks at length with one of the main developers at Craigslist. The episode is here: http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=217 http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=217
GHFigs 17y ago
There is no depth. There is nothing to analyse. "He thought about what his users wanted, and put very little on his site that wasn't useful to them." That's it.
- tptacek 17y ago
  This article is a capsule summary of what Wyman's been writing for about a year now. Here's a much more detailed piece: http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reasons-why-newspapers-are-failing http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reaso... The piece you're critiquing is a WSJ editorial, written for a generalist audience. Wyman may be the only media critic out there pushing the argument that it's not just the business model but the technical design of newspaper sites that's holding them back. It's hard to say there's nothing to his argument.
  - Dbug 17y ago
    Yes, his more detailed piece (in two parts) tells far more. And it isn't only insightful about the blunders of the newspaper industry, much of it applies to the mess that is commercial t.v. broadcasting and the broadcaster websites as well. (at least for the U.S.)
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    What I meant was that there was nothing to the workings of Craigslist--it really is that simple--and not to Wyman's argument, which I agree with, though I realize now that it wasn't clear. Thanks for the link, though!

by physcab 17y ago

This article was disappointing. I was expecting slightly more in-depth analysis into the workings of Craigslist and instead I got a rant about Newspaper websites.

hswolff 17y ago

Thank you for saving my 1-full WSJ article per day allotment on this article.

hga 17y ago
Anytime ^_^. The general trick is to search for a substring using Google and then click off of the search page; the pay wall isn't in place if the referring web site is Google.

lionhearted 17y ago

Funny, I came in expecting very little and was pleased with the article. A few quotes: > Indeed, I submit that it's hard to look at virtually any news site out there and not notice how its architecture and presentation differ from that of Craigslist, which has several times any news site's number of users. > So it's not surprising that the single most salient weakness of a mainstream news site is that in the end it is a corporate showcase, a striking contrast to the Craigslist model. The vocabulary of the architecture speaks plainly that the page is there to serve not readers, but to articulate the structure of the company behind it. > That architecture is depressingly similar. The typical news site doesn't take advantage of the wide horizontal window of the browser. Instead, it is framed inside a square or vertical box. And inside that frame, the reader is presented with four or five—and sometimes even seven or eight—horizontal lines of information or navigation before the first actual story headline appears. > Ultimately, I would like about 99% fewer navigation links on the page, but will settle for 90% fewer. For that service, a newspaper site can hit me with all the ads it wants, or charge me any amount of money. But until it provides this simple and I think obvious service to readers, one can't help suspecting that a newspaper's approach to the Web is incomplete. Some very good design points there, and those are just a few sentences I chose. I learned a little bit, so I think this one is worth the short read.

alxp 17y ago

If you are interested in how Craigslist works on the technical side you should listen to episode 199 of the Hanselminutes poscast where the host talks at length with one of the main developers at Craigslist. The episode is here: http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=217 http://www.hanselminutes.com/default.aspx?showID=217

GHFigs 17y ago

There is no depth. There is nothing to analyse. "He thought about what his users wanted, and put very little on his site that wasn't useful to them." That's it.

tptacek 17y ago
This article is a capsule summary of what Wyman's been writing for about a year now. Here's a much more detailed piece: http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reasons-why-newspapers-are-failing http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reaso... The piece you're critiquing is a WSJ editorial, written for a generalist audience. Wyman may be the only media critic out there pushing the argument that it's not just the business model but the technical design of newspaper sites that's holding them back. It's hard to say there's nothing to his argument.
- Dbug 17y ago
  Yes, his more detailed piece (in two parts) tells far more. And it isn't only insightful about the blunders of the newspaper industry, much of it applies to the mess that is commercial t.v. broadcasting and the broadcaster websites as well. (at least for the U.S.)
- GHFigs 17y ago
  What I meant was that there was nothing to the workings of Craigslist--it really is that simple--and not to Wyman's argument, which I agree with, though I realize now that it wasn't clear. Thanks for the link, though!