Hi MM > >It's not just newspapers. I was discussing this with Gaelen Lehman > >(of Lehman's Non-Electric), and we were both quite baffled by > >webmasters who go to a lot of trouble to get their websites up there > >in the search engines and linked from as many other sites as possible > >to improve their rankings - and then do a bit of a redesign and > >change all the urls, without leaving jump-links. Leaving the sites > >linked to them to look incompetent because of the "Not found" > >results. Those webmasters, in turn, usually just cut the link rather > >than searching about for the new url. > >I think it's stupidity.
Yup. But it's widespread. It amounts to stupidity, though it might all be very clever, but wrongly directed. They make brilliant improvements to their websites, but in the doing forget who they're doing it for, and end up doing the users a disservice, and themselves. And don't ever realise that, so blinded by the technology. >In many cases, I think that it just doesn't >occur to them that it might be good for business, that a critical >aspect of the net is that "time" has a different meaning, so someone >make come across a link and try to access a 6-month or 6 year or 60 >year old article, or whatever, and that it is just simply, obviously >(to an intelligent thinking person), a basic good common-sense >webmastering practice to keep some continuity in links, if one wishes >to encourage the fullest hassle-free least-discouraging use of one's >site, putting readers in touch with the work of writers. But this >type of thinking is dependent on practicing the thinking of putting >oneself in the position of the potential visitor (i.e.: putting >oneself in the position of the customer... an important business >practice) and so I agree that your "What about the reader?" test >applies here, as it amounts to, here, "What about the customer?" Yes, that's exactly right - reader = user, of whatever ilk. A failure of the imagination, to put yourself in the position of the fish you're trying to catch. > >Have you noticed that more and more US newspapers are requiring > >registration at their websites, like the NY Times? Free, yes, but > >they're getting a load of saleable info out of it. Maybe a cavalier > >attitude to their copyright is just fair exchange, eh? Anyway I don't > >think it works the way they think it does with copyright - the more > >their stories get bandied around the web and the lists the more good > >it does them. It's just free advertising, takes people to their > >websites. Better than free advertising (it has some substance or it > >wouldn't be bandied about). I reckon this is the real circulation > >battle today, at least as much as how many hard-copies they sell. > >Yes, there's a sort of sloppy trade-off between reader and news-site >in these early days of web economics. But getting to the hard-core >issue: it doesn't bother me that a news site would want some payment >for this or that, and I look forward to continued competition and >idea-making in how to do this without discouraging and indeed >encouraging guilt-free reading and news-sharing. In fact, I look >forward to paying some modest price for every story I read: no >problem. I have always thought that at some point this somewhat free >news we early net people have been getting for the last few years >would gradually transition to a different paradigm: something has to >give. Writers cannot work for free any more than anyone else can. >They need to eat and live and have substantial resources to research >their topics, and they need to be motivated to do good work. If they >want to give it away, fine, but that's their initial choice and to >steal work of those who don't want to give it away ultimately will >lead to a problem. I'm a writer, and I'm speaking from the point of view of a writer, who owns quite a lot of copyright. I've been various kinds of publisher too, and I'm still one. I think the paradigm that will change is the copyright, not the freedom of the web (well, that will change too, but it won't necessarily be lost). Writers are realising this, publishers and newspapers are well behind as usual. My point is that newspapers benefit from allowing their news to be spread freely, that does bring people to their websites looking for more - more so than if they try to control the spread of their "copyright" material. They were all so convinced at first, when they belatedly discovered the web, that free-access online editions would eat right into their hard-copy sales, but they all reluctantly had to change their tune when it became obvious that it did just the opposite. They aren't going to take to this naturally, they'll have to be forced every step of the way, kicking and screaming. >I think part of this will be solved by implementation of a good >microtransaction scheme, so that some publications can try different >schemes that charge in the single and double-digit >cents-per-article-view rather than too much money. Yes, there's room for that, I believe, though I don't see any of the experiments with it working very well, soon abandoned it seems. >Since, in these early days, and in the future, part of real net >revenue is dependent on hits (which leads to ad-views), it is >obviously taking money out of the pocket of a newspaper when we copy >and paste an article, No, I disagree, I think it might perhaps be "borrowing" it more than taking it, and then repaying it with considerable interest. I believe that's the point they're missing and that many writers are getting. It's quality-driven - unless it's good stuff with high reader-value (user, customer) it doesn't happen. An interesting new form of competition. >but there is *ample* excuse and reason for doing >this, since so very few papers have done anything close to what is >necessary to implement a fair and working scheme for news-sharing. I think a lot of people feel that way - even if they don't think about it, that's what they'll do until the newspapers provide something better, which they won't manage to do until they start considering the "reader" very much more than they're used to doing. That will be an interesting paradigm shift on its own. Newspaper readers don't have much choice really. The Internet changes that. >Awhile back I copied and pasted a local article to a newsgroup that >was discussing the local cable internet service, and there is some >financial tie-in there with the local paper. They were immediately on >my case, and I pointed out that since the paper webmaster did not make >the archive URL handy from the way I accessed the paper (only the >weekly URL and then changing it) that I did not wish to post a URL >which would be invalid in 7 or less days. Then they told me some >impossible-to-find way to find the archive URL. JERKS. As though I >should figure this garbage out on my own? *They* are the reason there >is a holdup to rational payment schemes in that example, not I. > >I have *never* heard a *single* person in these debates express the >slightest concern for the amount of time and trouble that a consumer >of news is cost in finding and sharing news, if he follows the rules >and passes on a link rather than copying and pasting, if that link is >then invalidated by newspaper negligence. That's exactly the argument I'd be having with the news editors that I referred to earlier - "What about the reader?" If they don't start thinking that way they just don't have a future. >How many readers, or dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, over the >months, will be inconvenienced and be cost time (is time money when >it's the time of a consumer, or just the time of an entrepeneur?) in >trying to find a link that is no longer there, in searching archives, >etc? Do we pass on links in email, knowing that it's something that >hits the spot, that we should assign a price to the time we take to >identify such a thing, to identify who would be interested in it, etc? >Why is a value of "zero" attached to the time and trouble that is >wasted for all of us, and our many associates, when we are told that >we are violating copyright law and "costing" the news or commentary >site "hits" and "therefore" "money"? Absolutely. In my terms above, this adds up to reduced quality, an uncompetitive product. That's what counts, not who owns the copyright on it. >I have some similar thoughts about the complexities of the issues in >music copyright, but I'll stop there for now. I believe current practice with all forms of intellectual property is unsustainable. Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Kwick Pick opens locked car doors, front doors, drawers, briefcases, padlocks, and more. On sale now! http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
