I think it fits well into the Amazon model, precisely because the Amazon model is a successful model for commerce, and commerce is about the conversations of business. News companies are not charities - they are in it to make money. To make money, you have to carry on good conversations with your customers.
When I read "the news", I expect clear reporting...
No comments.
When I read "a column" then... it is time to make a more iteresting "story".
There IS a difference. It should always be remembered.
I don't think journalists separate fact from opinion, readers do. I read The Economist, but I am not under any illusion that when an article draws conclusions, that these are based on other facts previously discussed in the article - they are based on interpretation of those facts and opinions about those facts. When I read the daily newspaper, there is not much opinion, only news. However, in the case of say, The Sunday Times (or other Murdoch organs), there may be editorializing directly mixed in with an article.
This is clear from the differences in writing style. Such stylistic hints can be used on the web. In fact, this can be well done in a format which is flexible like the Amazon style of compartments, where the straight news can be segregated in a subtle but discernable way.
i believe "amazoning the news" oversimplifies the solution, especially concerning the mockup of a sports news page. amazon sells "material" products, news companies, for the most part, sell information. why even try to equte the two?
some quibbles i had: giving almost equal weight to "complete story" "story age" "story rank" etc. was a good example of bad design.
furthermore, at amazon, users are wading through millions of titles to find ones that suit them and publication dates are relatively unimportant. in searching through news stories, most users are looking through a far smaller amount of offerings and recent articles are definitely more important. why then would a "customers who read this article" section have added value? most of us are going to read the headlines, few of us are going to be interested in a story from 30 years ago.
just some thoughts.
jadefox, i think you bring up an interesting debate. what is the intrinsic value of a story? the story itself or the relationship of that story to other types of information?
sometimes "the story" itself is not as important to a reader as the marginalia that surrounds it. we used the amazon example to reveal methods of associating other types information with the "story." in doing that, we expand the traditional concept of story.
