See other responses
·
Founder of Nerd Collider
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual product which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags.
5 Immediate Suggestions
1.) Inline Edits
The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu
This is...
a.) Patronizing.
You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline.
b.) A waste of time for the editor.
TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries.
2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible
Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust.
3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries
I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's the lab's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo.
4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab
It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content.
5.) Tags over Categories
Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
5 Immediate Suggestions
1.) Inline Edits
The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu
This is...
a.) Patronizing.
You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline.
b.) A waste of time for the editor.
TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries.
2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible
Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust.
3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries
I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's the lab's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo.
4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab
It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content.
5.) Tags over Categories
Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
·
6 edits
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags.
<b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b>
<b>1.) Inline Edits</b>
The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu
This is...
a.) Patronizing.
You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline.
b.) A waste of time for the editor.
TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries.
<b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b>
Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust.
<b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b>
I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's the lab's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo.
<b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b>
It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content.
<b>5.) Tags over Categories</b>
Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> <b>1.) Inline Edits</b> The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. <b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b> Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. <b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b> I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. <b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b> It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. <b>5.) Tags over Categories</b> Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> <b>1.) Inline Edits</b> The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. <b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b> Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. <b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b> I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. <b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b> It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. <b>5.) Tags over Categories</b> Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> <b>1.) Inline Edits</b> The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. <b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b> Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. <b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b> I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. <b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b> It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. <b>5.) Tags over Categories</b> Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> 1.) Inline Edits The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. 2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. 3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. 4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. 5.) Tags over Categories Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. 5 Immediate Suggestions 1.) Inline Edits The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. 2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. 3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. 4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. 5.) Tags over Categories Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> <b>1.) Inline Edits</b> The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. <b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b> Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. <b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b> I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. <b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b> It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. <b>5.) Tags over Categories</b> Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> <b>1.) Inline Edits</b> The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. <b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b> Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. <b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b> I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. <b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b> It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. <b>5.) Tags over Categories</b> Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> <b>1.) Inline Edits</b> The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. <b>2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible</b> Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. <b>3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries</b> I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. <b>4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab</b> It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. <b>5.) Tags over Categories</b> Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. <b>5 Immediate Suggestions</b> 1.) Inline Edits The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. 2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. 3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. 4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. 5.) Tags over Categories Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago
You can make a solid argument that a "Future of News" encyclopedia should be an independent entity and not attached to a blog but Nieman Lab has funding specifically for this project and they've launched an actual project which is more than I can say for many others who have talked about doing a 'crunchbase for news' in the past couple years. Saying that though, if Nieman is serious about pulling this off there are some big crimson flags. 5 Immediate Suggestions 1.) Inline Edits The first thing I did when I clicked on the encyclopedia was try to edit. I was pretty surprised to find that there wasn't an edit button on each article and then I face palmed when I found this: http://bit.ly/iRgVyu This is... a.) Patronizing. You're telling your users that in order to contribute to an encyclopedia on 'The Future of News' they need to drop their thoughts into a magic suggestion box? Really? It's fine to want to have more control over entires but this is the kind of feedback system usually reserved for an airline. b.) A waste of time for the editor. TechCrunch has developed and updated CrunchBase for many years now. One of the reasons they have inline editing is because it significantly speeds the process of approving small edits and new entries. 2.) Make All Edits and Suggested Edits Visible Right now the site feels like a loose collection of Mark Coddington articles where all the comments are hidden and it's not clear why (or how many times) an article has been updated. Displaying pending inline edits will generate more trust. 3.) Embrace Less Complete Entries I asked Mark on twitter how they decide what becomes a new entry and he said it's Joshua Benton's editorial decision—this resulted in another face palm. Do not make having an entry prestigious, it is not worth the time. Let a thousand flowers bloom and create a system that lets you mark entries that are less complete as so. You're putting together an industry database not an invite list for News Foo. 4.) Design the site as a platform not an advertisement for Nieman Lab It's clear that work went into making the site look pleasant but the look is awkward for an encyclopedia. The branding on the page is over 300 pixels and dominates each entry, you could easily pull it off in a single row and dedicate the rest of attention to content. 5.) Tags over Categories Online, Magazines, Tech Companies, and Newspapers are unhelpful distinctions for organizing the database as a company like The New York Times fits into literally every single one of those categories. Tags will give you more flexibility in sorting and will make it easier to add new entries.
about 1 year ago