USA Today May Be A Bit More Social, But It Doesn't Want Google To Know What The Riff Raff Have To Say
from the not-really-letting-them-in dept
USA Today has definitely been a lot more innovative than some other newspapers in trying to figure out how to thrive online. While other newspapers have tried to shrink their audience or shrink their relevance by putting up hurdles that take them out of the greater conversation, USA Today has stepped forward with experiments to embrace citizen journalism and embrace social media tools. None of these experiments are guaranteed to succeed, but it does seem like a good sign that the newspaper is trying and seeing what happens. However, it appears that while USA Today has embraced some aspects of breaking down the barrier between the newspapers and the people it serves, they're still pretty scared of having those people associated with USA Today's brand. The new social features are designed such that the information that people put into them is hidden from search engines like Google.Matt Marshall over at VentureBeat contacted USA Today to find out why, and was basically told that the newspaper is worried that the general public will give its brand a bad name. A company representative told Marshall that the newspaper is worried "about what content is associated with the brand...." That seems silly however. The comments here on Techdirt are wide open and indexed by search engines -- and while there may be a few people who somehow think that a random commenter represents the views of Techdirt, most people recognize that they're the views of someone else, but posted here. The USA Today representative followed up his statement by saying: "We're still a newspaper." But, that's just the thing. They're no longer really a "newspaper," but a business that's delivering news and information in a useful way to a community of people. Devaluing that community by suggesting they're not worthy of being included in Google isn't a particularly friendly "welcome" gesture.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No problem
Most comment spam is really link spam. If everyone knows the comments are not indexed then only the really dumb spammers will bother to pollute the comment threads. Sounds like a clever idea....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
papaer comments
Obviously entirely community written pieces should be indexed, but comments on other stories might be a bit different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't really matter
Also, I have a real problem with the concept of news as a "social medium." USA Toady will present stories based on popularity and comments. Geesh, the most important news will become "who had plastic surgery" instead of "who's committing corporate fraud." News is not a popularity contest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better than the Belgians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA Today, however, will continue to do articles that are straight up journalism and will be marketed towards a much much wider audience, some of whose opinion may be, shall we say, very uninformed?
USA Today is merely looking out for the QUALITY and INTEGRITY of their product.
Imagine a scenario:
A homosexual nightclub burns down in New York City. USA Today writes a whole article about it. Some readers post comments on topic and others use it as a platform to post about their hatred for homosexuals, thus spurning an all out flame war. Googlers do a search on some anti-homosexual rhetoric and up pops the USA Today article.
Now, the article, along with USA Today has been associated with homophobia/hatred.
This is an extreme example and chances are it may be moderated to the point that such an incident will never occur, but, at least it points out a very real concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kilroy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to a lesser extent
usa today's choice to keep comments from being indexed creates a clear line between the legitimate journalists writing the articles and the often less-equipped and more-volatile story commenters. i think keeping them un-indexed is a great way to say, "the journalist's work is of greater worth and value to our paper than the comments related to that work."
as a journalist, i think it shows respect.
also, i don't know how many people care if their comments show up on searches. if you want your voice to be heard by a wider audience, start a web site... don't forum/comment whore expecting to gain notoriety or some level of (perceived) credibility because of your ability to make remarks on someone else's work. that's weak sauce.
if people are making comments on usa today's web site with the (direct or indirect) intent of showing up on searches, that's kind of pathetic. by removing that incentive, you remove approval-hungry, self-aggrandizing commenters. win-effing-win for usa today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow can't search comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA Today?
Do you watch Fox News also?
Honestly, if you are so serious about brain death, slitting your wrists is much faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]