Why isn’t the New York Times more like Digg or Newsvine?

NetPartner is a leading affiliate network!

Why isn’t the New York Times more like Digg or Newsvine?

June 29th, 2006 13 Comments

What if the New York Times let users vote on stories on their webpage the way Digg lets users vote? Wouldn’t it be more interesting to visit the website and see what real people found interesting? Wouldn’t that help the editors figure out which authors were most interesting to the public?

I think the answer to all of those questions is yes. So why haven’t they implemented that system yet? It couldn’t be that hard, their recent redesign would have been a perfect time to implement something like that.

Why doesn’t the old media take a few hints from the new media? People like control. People like interaction. People like what other people like.

When I visit Digg I don’t spend much time digging around through the links because I know the people truly passionate about technology and finding good stories have already done that. They already picked out what’s interesting and it’s on the front page. The same goes for Newsvine.

When I visit the New York Times website (which I do about 3 times a month) I find myself clicking through sections and trying to find stories that interest me. It takes much longer. So which website do I visit more often? The one that takes less time. The one that shows me what other people found interesting – not just the news editor.

If the New York Times had a system that was similar to Newsvine or Digg, I would be there at least once a day. Instead I’m at Newsvine or Digg more often than not (although I must admit, Newsvine is my favorite).

When the New York Times’ current subscriber base dies, who will subscribe? No one in my generation wants a subscription, we can join the website for free if we cared that much about what the New York Times printed. But Digg and Newsvine are more fun, anyway. We get to leave comments and discuss stories with other people.

Related Ads:

Why isn’t the New York Times more like Digg or Newsvine?

Nick | June 29, 2006

Ben, the New York Times has something that shows you how people are reacting to stories in a way. If you look on the lower right you’ll see a box labeled most popular which tracks what articles have been emailed, blogged, and searched the most. I know its no digg or newsvine, but at least they’re trying.

Ben Bleikamp | June 29, 2006

Nick – I didn’t realize that. I’d prefer something immediate and next to each story. I’d also like to see those popular stories get pushed to the spots the main headlines are in.

Why wouldn’t you want the most popular story to have the most prominent headline?

Taylor | June 29, 2006

government controlled media? propoganda?

Taylor | June 29, 2006

kidding.

Jesse J. Anderson | June 30, 2006

I love Digg… but I certainly don’t go to it to find what the big news or breaking news is. An editor-less user-driven news site will never replace the traditional news site, rather it has created it’s own place in the world of news sites.

JD Arney | June 30, 2006

That would be ridiculously terrible.

People like American Idol. People are often wrong.

How often do you see news on Iraq on Digg? Worldwide events?

If people voted on NYT stories all you’d see would be quirky, funny, and odd. I don’t see that as a good thing.

News isn’t always meant to be interesting, sometimes it’s meant to inform the public of things it deserves to know.

Nick | June 30, 2006

I tend to agree with JD here. The NY Times is a great source of information, and they point out things that people should know (for the most part). That’s why their editors are picked so carefully.

I wouldn’t trust my main source of news consumption to be chosen by the people at large. I want experts who know what’s good and what isn’t. Full time devotees to the news. The general public is pretty idiotic sometimes and I generally don’t trust them to disseminate valuable information a majority of the time. The NY Times provides that service for me.

Ben Bleikamp | June 30, 2006

I disagree with both of you. On Newsvine there is lots of great information on every topic. The users pick great stories to vote for. Digg is a bad example because it is a technology site. Newsvine is a news site and they have all the same stories that every major newspaper has.

There is information that gets buried in newspapers because editors don’t think it’s interesting. But it is interesting. It needs to be heard.

JD Arney | June 30, 2006

I’m showing the most voted on stories at Newsvine right now to be:

* The RIAA and MPAA could learn from Gary Larson (27 votes)
* Why We Love Conspiracies (22 votes)
* What OS X 10.5 ‘Leopard’ actually needs, is what we should already have. (18 votes)
* A War on Nouns (18 votes)

I’m still failing to see how that’s a better model than The New York Times.

I have a lot of problems with traditional media, I just don’t think social bookmarking is the way to solve them.

Ben Bleikamp | June 30, 2006

Well, social bookmarking and social networking and social news sites are related but not the same.

And I agree that list of stories from Newsvine is a bit … lackluster. But in my experience the front page stories on Newsvine are much more diverse than what you listed there.

And also, when I check each section of Newsvine I get a list of “most active” users and I can tell what they find interesting.

I can see what my friends find interesting. I can see what the people on my watchlist are writing.

How can I do that on the NYTimes website? I can’t even watch my favorite authors.

Frank | July 1, 2006

It isn’t always best to go with the masses. The truth doesn’t change based on what the masses want to know.

Jason Brown | July 1, 2006

There is still something to be said for editors of print/online media. Being an editor or even a reporter, takes skill and and certain flare to be great at.

If you let the masses control what gets printed, it’s not always a fantastic success like Digg came out to be, but part of Digg’s success ( such as /. ) is the fact it was niched to Tech news and articles.

I doubt my grandfather, and many other non-tech enabled people, will be able to ‘digg’ a story for the New York Times, thus leaving a still large percentage of readers out of the picture if it was user driven.

Conspiracy Bob | July 7, 2006

If the NYT turned into Digg it would probably degenerate quickly. Digg has some great news, but the maturity level of the commenters is often low. Digg often turns into a frenzy of impulsively burying comments of all the people who disagree. If the NYT went that route, I think that it would polarize the country even more as people spent hours trying to manipulate the slant of the newspaper for political ends.