10 Reasons why online news sites suck
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
It may be wrong to beat a man (or a newspaper) when he's down, but some of the unconscionable and downright annoying features and practices of news sites warrant a little attention. Here are some of the worst offenders:
1. 50 million-word stories
The reason why so many people use the internet to get their news is because they can do so fairly quickly. So that Pulitzer Prize candidate that takes two years to scroll through and resembles an endless sea of text? Either break it up or kick it down a notch.
2. Multi-page "slideshows"
On the flip side, there are the popular online "slideshows" — one news story spread over several pages, usually with a single image and a paragraph of text on each page. While the practice may be good for page views, no one wants to click through 27 different pages to read a single story.
3. Expanding/ "Rich media" ads
You're going about your business, reading a news article when suddenly that innocuous ad in the corner expands across the page and some cute animation demands your attention. You panic and search for the "close" button, but because it's tucked away in the last spot you'll ever look, you can't finish reading the news article and leave the site in disgust. Sound familiar?
4. No links whatsoever
Often a news story will refer to some cool, hip, happening site, but because there is no link to said site, readers are left to Google it themselves. Sometimes, this is the fault of the reporter for not including the link or at minimum a note to do so. Yet many news sites just don't have a practice of linking out or even worse, don't include links in fear that their readers may be taken away from their site.
5. Registration
Thankfully many news organizations have seen the error of their ways and stopped requiring visitors to register just to view a single story. There are a few holdouts who insist on the practice and who fail to realize that many visitors would rather not read the story at all than to endure a five-minute registration process for a site they may never return to anyway.
6. Poor design
The average front page of a major news site looks like the HTML fairies threw up on it: endless columns of text and links with no real differentiation between the content. If you're going to do the column thing, check out Alltop to see how it's supposed to be done.
7. Full-screen ads
Upon visiting a news site, readers are greeted with a full-screen ad for something or the other instead of the story they were expecting to read. Again, done to generate advertising revenue, but it doesn't make the practice any less annoying.
8. The never-ending hunt
As seen on TV? Not really. Many television newscasters at the end of a report will say something along the lines of "For more information, check out our website" and give the station's web address. However, when the viewer actually visits the site, the link to the story is nowhere to be found and doesn't show up in the site's search.
9. Pop-up ads
Are we really still doing these? Really?
10. Comment trolls and flamers
These guys are the bane of many sites' existence (and not just news ones). Because of the sometimes controversial nature of whats being reported, people use news sites as a forum for their bitter, inflammatory, racist or insulting remarks. Frustrated site managers try to dissuade or delete said comments, but are mostly crying on the inside and clinging to the notion that everyone has the right to free speech.
Also on 10,000 Words:
• 25 Things I've Learned About Journalism
• Eyetrack studies: What we've learned and how to conduct your own
• The difference between print and online design
1. 50 million-word stories
The reason why so many people use the internet to get their news is because they can do so fairly quickly. So that Pulitzer Prize candidate that takes two years to scroll through and resembles an endless sea of text? Either break it up or kick it down a notch.
2. Multi-page "slideshows"
On the flip side, there are the popular online "slideshows" — one news story spread over several pages, usually with a single image and a paragraph of text on each page. While the practice may be good for page views, no one wants to click through 27 different pages to read a single story.
3. Expanding/ "Rich media" ads
You're going about your business, reading a news article when suddenly that innocuous ad in the corner expands across the page and some cute animation demands your attention. You panic and search for the "close" button, but because it's tucked away in the last spot you'll ever look, you can't finish reading the news article and leave the site in disgust. Sound familiar?
4. No links whatsoever
Often a news story will refer to some cool, hip, happening site, but because there is no link to said site, readers are left to Google it themselves. Sometimes, this is the fault of the reporter for not including the link or at minimum a note to do so. Yet many news sites just don't have a practice of linking out or even worse, don't include links in fear that their readers may be taken away from their site.
5. Registration
Thankfully many news organizations have seen the error of their ways and stopped requiring visitors to register just to view a single story. There are a few holdouts who insist on the practice and who fail to realize that many visitors would rather not read the story at all than to endure a five-minute registration process for a site they may never return to anyway.
6. Poor design
The average front page of a major news site looks like the HTML fairies threw up on it: endless columns of text and links with no real differentiation between the content. If you're going to do the column thing, check out Alltop to see how it's supposed to be done.
7. Full-screen ads
Upon visiting a news site, readers are greeted with a full-screen ad for something or the other instead of the story they were expecting to read. Again, done to generate advertising revenue, but it doesn't make the practice any less annoying.
8. The never-ending hunt
As seen on TV? Not really. Many television newscasters at the end of a report will say something along the lines of "For more information, check out our website" and give the station's web address. However, when the viewer actually visits the site, the link to the story is nowhere to be found and doesn't show up in the site's search.
9. Pop-up ads
Are we really still doing these? Really?
10. Comment trolls and flamers
These guys are the bane of many sites' existence (and not just news ones). Because of the sometimes controversial nature of whats being reported, people use news sites as a forum for their bitter, inflammatory, racist or insulting remarks. Frustrated site managers try to dissuade or delete said comments, but are mostly crying on the inside and clinging to the notion that everyone has the right to free speech.
Also on 10,000 Words:
• 25 Things I've Learned About Journalism
• Eyetrack studies: What we've learned and how to conduct your own
• The difference between print and online design
Labels: design, news on the news, site management
14 Comments
Deborah Potter Says:
Shame on any station still guilty of #8, also known as "moron" teases. Two essentials every TV and radio outlet should know:
1. You have to give viewers/listeners a specific, actionable reason to go to the Web (to see if your favorite restaurant made the list...)
2. You have to give viewers a way to find it easily if it's not front and center on the home page. My local news radio station uses keywords, which do the trick. (eg: go to xxx.com, keyword "restaurants."
1. You have to give viewers/listeners a specific, actionable reason to go to the Web (to see if your favorite restaurant made the list...)
2. You have to give viewers a way to find it easily if it's not front and center on the home page. My local news radio station uses keywords, which do the trick. (eg: go to xxx.com, keyword "restaurants."
JBaker Says:
Interesting that half your complaints relate to online advertising far more than they relate to the practice of news online.
I'd suggest we work on fixing _that_. Aside from the fact that it's the main revenue stream, you make the valid point that it's also the main stumbling block to easy of use.
I'd suggest we work on fixing _that_. Aside from the fact that it's the main revenue stream, you make the valid point that it's also the main stumbling block to easy of use.
Sonya Says:
Great list!
Interesting, and right on, that you included point No. 4 of "No links whatsoever." I was just discussing that with a colleague before reading this blog post. I'm guessing that if a company makes it the policy to link out to other Web sites that most people will listen -- especially in these times of frequent layoffs. If someone is scared about getting a pink slip and ignores those linking guidelines, shame on them. If management does not change the policy to move towards a world-wide-web policy of linking and existing, well, that would also be a shame.
Interesting, and right on, that you included point No. 4 of "No links whatsoever." I was just discussing that with a colleague before reading this blog post. I'm guessing that if a company makes it the policy to link out to other Web sites that most people will listen -- especially in these times of frequent layoffs. If someone is scared about getting a pink slip and ignores those linking guidelines, shame on them. If management does not change the policy to move towards a world-wide-web policy of linking and existing, well, that would also be a shame.
John Says:
What about making mobile users go to the stripped down version of the site (the mobile version ) instead of giving them the choice of using their web browser (say, Safari on an iPhone?). Especially when the news I want is not on the mobile version. Seems pretty counter productive to me.
Andrew Says:
Terrific. The analogies with print are compelling: short and clEar is good; and don't let the furniture get in the way of the action.
suzanne Says:
Once again, 10,000 Words nails it.
Just today I was quibbling with someone over #4, trying to convince him that the article needed to have the URLs of the sites that were reference. Can you believe that still happens? Today? 2009?
Just today I was quibbling with someone over #4, trying to convince him that the article needed to have the URLs of the sites that were reference. Can you believe that still happens? Today? 2009?
Says:
All common sense really. One to add though...
So, I'm half way through reading a story online and there is a helpful link. I click on it and it opens up over the top of the site I was viewing (much like the Alltop link above...). It's all very well if the link is to another page in the same website, but when it is a link to an external site it drives me mad. Why make readers work harder than they have to to finish reading the original article?
Rant over.
So, I'm half way through reading a story online and there is a helpful link. I click on it and it opens up over the top of the site I was viewing (much like the Alltop link above...). It's all very well if the link is to another page in the same website, but when it is a link to an external site it drives me mad. Why make readers work harder than they have to to finish reading the original article?
Rant over.
NorCal Cazadora Says:
Love No. 1! We used to say those stories needed a warning at the top: "Pulitzer entry - do not read."
Ryan's point about well written long stories is a good one, but there are a lot of long stories that aren't well written, or maybe they used to be before the lawyers got their hands on them.
I think we would be smart to take long print stories (which should always be broken up with lots of visuals anyway) and perhaps given them an entirely different treatment on the web, e.g., creating a whole page for that story, with multiple components. You can have a Clif's Notes summary for those of us in a hurry, and a long story and lots of pieces for those who really want to dwell on it.
-Holly Heyser
Ryan's point about well written long stories is a good one, but there are a lot of long stories that aren't well written, or maybe they used to be before the lawyers got their hands on them.
I think we would be smart to take long print stories (which should always be broken up with lots of visuals anyway) and perhaps given them an entirely different treatment on the web, e.g., creating a whole page for that story, with multiple components. You can have a Clif's Notes summary for those of us in a hurry, and a long story and lots of pieces for those who really want to dwell on it.
-Holly Heyser
Carl Morris Says:
@Emma M I disagree, I like that. You can choose to open it in a new window. On a Windows PC press Ctrl and then click the link. I think these links are more polite than the ones that forcibly open in a new window.
3, 7 and 9 all relate to advertising. The thing they have in common is interruption advertising. So old school! It's all about context now.
3, 7 and 9 all relate to advertising. The thing they have in common is interruption advertising. So old school! It's all about context now.
Chris Amico Says:
#8 is the biggest for me. I just can't find anything, even if I know what I'm looking for. That's true of broadcast and print alike in my experience.
My web development mantra is quickly becoming: "Easy to find. Easy to share."
My web development mantra is quickly becoming: "Easy to find. Easy to share."
Tools Says:
I am a Software Guy. I used to read the news online. I am totally agree with all the reason mentioned by you.
Every online news sites have lots of ads which views dynamically even they appears when i read news. Some news sites have so long procedure for registration. Its really boring. I think they should improve their process.
Every online news sites have lots of ads which views dynamically even they appears when i read news. Some news sites have so long procedure for registration. Its really boring. I think they should improve their process.
pirateman Says:
I completely agree with number 10. I have a friend who works for Manchester Evening news in the UK and I helped him set up his own social news website because of censorship by admins abusing powers. Nothing on the new site was deleted (that wasn't illegal) yet after a while a few people started rumours of censorship and were simply stirring up trouble to troll. It got to the point where any comment made by myself was immediately followed by torrents of abuse and claims of mass deletions of comments (even though I never had admin privileges). In the end I simply left the site as the users became more abusive and mob like every day.
Why? Maybe it's just that I spend all my time in front of some sort of digital screen, but I don't have any problem with scrolling or paging through a long narrative from Newsweek or the New York Times or something of that quality.
Am I going to read 60 inches that bore me in any medium? Unlikely.
January 28, 2009 9:29 AM