This screenshot shows Indiana reader's story critique, which he posted directly to USA Today's Facebook page:
Right on schedule, USA Today made its new beta site the default view yesterday, two weeks after introducing the radically different tablet-like design with the paper's 30th anniversary.
In a note to readers, editors summarized the changes this way: "We've added bigger pictures, more graphics, cleaner stories and crisper video."
(And, I'd add, bigger advertisements: At the moment, readers landing on the homepage are greeted by a nearly full-screen Dunkin Donuts ad that stays in place unless you click it away.)
What's the reaction so far? That's a little hard to gauge: Readers can't post comments to the editors' note; instead, they're directed to a feedback form at the bottom right of each page. Those comments aren't being made public.
But Northern Indiana reader Levi James made clear that he doesn't think the stories are, in fact, "cleaner." He noticed an embarrassing typo on a presidential campaign story, captured it in a screen shot, and posted the image to USA Today's Facebook page four hours ago. Circling the offending passage in red, he gave the editors a big "fail."
How closely do they monitor that Facebook page? We'll see. At the moment, the typo James identified is still in the story.
In a note to readers, editors summarized the changes this way: "We've added bigger pictures, more graphics, cleaner stories and crisper video."
(And, I'd add, bigger advertisements: At the moment, readers landing on the homepage are greeted by a nearly full-screen Dunkin Donuts ad that stays in place unless you click it away.)
What's the reaction so far? That's a little hard to gauge: Readers can't post comments to the editors' note; instead, they're directed to a feedback form at the bottom right of each page. Those comments aren't being made public.
But Northern Indiana reader Levi James made clear that he doesn't think the stories are, in fact, "cleaner." He noticed an embarrassing typo on a presidential campaign story, captured it in a screen shot, and posted the image to USA Today's Facebook page four hours ago. Circling the offending passage in red, he gave the editors a big "fail."
How closely do they monitor that Facebook page? We'll see. At the moment, the typo James identified is still in the story.
Fixed an hour after you posted this. It is not so much a problem with editing, but with the new online software that likes to squish words and letters together sometimes.
ReplyDeleteReaders have been using story comments to post their reaction to the change. A lot of negative comments.
ReplyDeleteChange - always produces negative comments. No news with this...
DeleteThose who can, do.
ReplyDeleteThose who can't, cavil.
(And the really useless? They blog.)
Change that is not executed properly, which is Gannett's typical style, should get negative comments. System after system is improperly launched and claimed not to work due to lack of managers' follow-through and apathy from employees. Their is nothing "world class" about Gannett and no matter how many consultants they hire in their feable attempt to get their, they will never reach it with current publishers like Kevin Doyle who is coasting to retirement.
ReplyDeleteI admire the effort put into the new website. I get that they wanted it to look like a tablet, and I imagine that everyone thought this was an innovative and brilliant idea that harks back 30 years to USA Today emulating TV. But because the website responds like a website and not like an iPad or an iPhone, the contrast is jarring in the extreme. Navigating is not smooth, and news judgment has all but disappeared. Do I really want to spend time in a virtual world in which missing children in China and an inane Dancing With the Stars blog have equal importance?
ReplyDeleteIt's not a comfortable place to land and spend time. Everything about the website shouts "hurry, hurry," "move on" and "get out."
What I don't get is how USA Today went so quickly from being proud of its name and content to being a no-name (or at least a tiny name) hodgepodge of ho-hum information burdened with a distracting number of bells and whistles and visuals.
Sorry, but this "world class" post speaks for itself:
ReplyDelete'Their [sic] is nothing "world class" about Gannett and no matter how many consultants they hire in their feable [sic] attempt...'
I'm more concerned that a Gannett writer would cite a poll result of 47% vs. 46% as evidence of Romney "trailing." Can someone teach these people how to read and interpret polling results? Please?
ReplyDelete"In a note to readers, editors summarized the changes this way: "We've added bigger pictures, more graphics, cleaner stories and crisper video."
ReplyDeleteNotice they didn't include: better journalism.