Now That NY Times Archive Is Online... People Wish They Could Forget The Past
from the so-what-do-you-do? dept
It's interesting to hear that the New York Times gets approximately one request a day to delete an old article, because we get those requests at Techdirt as well (though, not nearly as often). In both cases, it's often due to someone who is upset that, even if the old article was accurate at the time, it's no longer the case any more -- but Google still calls it up on searches. Clark Hoyt, the current Public Editor of the NY Times discusses the struggle the paper has about what to do in those circumstances. Traditionally, they've just said "sorry, we can't do anything" to people. Now there are cases where they may add a correction or an additional note on incorrect information. There's even a bizarre (and somewhat silly) suggestion that they should have their archives simply "forget" certain "less important" news.However, what may be most odd is that the article does not include one of the most obvious way to deal with these issues: post a response from the person who feels wronged, to give their side. When people complain about old posts on Techdirt, assuming they're factually accurate, we simply suggest that people put up a comment on the post explaining their side of the story. Of course, this response is quite similar to the new Google News comment feature that so many journalists seem up in arms about -- fearing that it will simply be used for spin, PR and distortion. What they forget is that if such comments are clearly marked as coming from the biased party, people can take that into account, and it provides the additional info necessary for people to make a more informed decision. The NY Times piece also leaves out a second option: that the person can get themselves in the news again, and have the old stories disappear into the dark caverns of Google's later page search results. In fact, that technique may be working for Allen Kraus, one of the guys used as an example in the NY Times piece. Thanks to this new NY Times piece, many of the links on Google appearing under his name are already about this particular story, rather than the old one he's upset about.
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
Filed Under: newspapers, old news, permanent record
Companies: new york times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should be careful,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add a standard disclaimer
If the article was not accurate at the time of publication and has been corrected, use this: "This archived article has been corrected from its original version. The version you are reading was accurate at the time of publication. It may or may no longer be accurate. *Click here* for previous versions."
Previous versions, which have been officially corrected, should have a large warning at the very top saying the article contains inaccuracies and should not be relied upon, but that it is made available in the interest of not hiding the publisher's mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ny times and google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google News = paper of record?
What newspapers could do--but would obviously cost money--would be to post updates at the top of articles with links to follow-up stories. So, anyone coming into an archived story could see that the story they came in on was either incomplete or simply that there's more to it than the original report (the case with most stories)
The simple fact that Google doesn't always pick up the most recent information on a person (or for a blog's links, for that matter)is a bit of evidence that for all its automation, Google is hardly perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search engine optimization
I'm a bit puzzled by the suggestion in some of the comments that search engines ideally should produce the most recent information first. Surely, the aim is to give a higher place to the information that the searcher is likely to be looking for, regardless of whether it's recent or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]