Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
It seems the Times doesn't feel right if they aren't covering the phenomenon of blogs. This week, the Arts & Leisure section has a cover feature on photo blogs. Writer Sarah Boxer does a little exploring, and discovers some photo bloggers that also happen to be favorites of Gothamist: David Gallagher's lightningfield, Eliot Shepard's slower.net, Todd Gross's quarlo.com, Laura Holder's fotolog.net/lauratitian, and the site, fotolog.net, which was started by Adam Seifer, Scott Heiferman and Spike. Congratulations, guys.
What works with the Times article online is that Laura's bag photo is in it's full color glory (see the actual version here) while the print version has a small black-and-white photo - not the same. What doesn't work with the Times article online is the fact that all of the URLs of the photo blogs listed are not live hyperlinks. Come on, if the Styles section can get some, if not all, of the blogs listed in last weekend's blogging articles last weekend live links, there's no reason why the Arts & Leisure section can't.
We met with a few of the Brooklyn photo bloggers last week.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I disagree.
well put. and why are links in articles used only for stock quotes?
oops, I meant the article was well put, not Steve's comment.
i'm not sure- i definitely want to talk to our "sources" at the times and see if someone can give me a copy of the link policy. because it seems inconsistant- last weekend they linked a bunch of sites directly, but this weekend they did not. Why?
Another good point about the article that Laura brought up today was you can't even properly cut and paste the links, because for some reason, they put spaces in the URL addresses! Crazy!
And, Steve, not sure what you're disagreeing with...
I emailed the author of the article to inform her that the urls are disfunctional for cutting/pasting... I believe she would surely want them to work, as they can enhance her editorial... The site's function is to serve an editorial purpose, as much as the print format, yes?
i agree- i think it's probably just a mistake in the digital version.
Yes, one would think the hyperlinks should be (a) correctly entered into the article for easy cut-and-paste and (b) live for easy exploration, but according to our sources at the Times, the links are decided by the people at the website, which is in a totally separate building. I doubt editorial gets to look over the online-version of the articles...ah, print journalism still has a ways to go with being online.
ok, it's dork time.
working on a project today, I came across a situation that brought me to this conclusion on why URLs in New York Times articles are the way they are:
1. They generally avoid linking to other sites because it drives traffic away.
2. The URLs contain spaces because continuous URLs that happen to be too long will not wrap automatically. This will cause pages to 'break' or expand to a width beyond the design of the template.
update/// just received this from nytimes arts/web person:
"Laura:
Thank you for bringing the spacing problem on the photo blog story to our attention.
I also improved accessibility to the sites by linking to them on the side of the page."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/arts/design/25BOXE.html
>> thanks to Sarah Boxer and Inger Lund