Are You Ogling Google News? 60
heytal asks: "Yes, It's old news, and you all have been to Google News at least once. And yes, it crawls Slashdot and considers it as one of the news sources too ;-).This article is an interesting article on how things work, and how Google News would change the industry. What I want to ask the Slashdot users is their experience with Google News, how much they use it, and how has it changed their news surfing habbits?"
Infrequent (Score:1)
Just give me my Wall Street Journal every morning and I'm happy. For breaking news, I just (regular) Google the topic and usually get all I want from that.
~Chaltek
Not in my bookmarks (Score:2)
This does not mean that I wouldn't use it for particular stories of interest.
Re:Not in my bookmarks (Score:2)
It's not the New York Times (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Google News has an advantage in that it covers news sites from all over the world, and presumably the more coverage an issue gets, the more prominently it is displayed. This technically provides less bias in news stories (i.e. not so US-centric).
So, I read both sites.
The NYT is nothing special (Score:2)
If you want to see how it should be done look at the BBC's news site, news.bbc.co.uk/ [bbc.co.uk], which is available in both UK and world editions. Far less bias, far more coverage, far better analysis. Basically, it makes the NYT site (and most other news sites) look amateur by comparison.
Looking at the Google News home page right now there are only two articles from the NYT linked to and plenty more from other US media outlets, including the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, SF Chronicle, Seattle Times, International Herald Tribune, USA Today and Fox News. By comparison, there are ten stories that link to the BBC's news site, including the current lead article.
It's not a scientific analysis but it does indicate that the BBC is perhaps a broader and more widely respected news outlet than the NYT.
(Here endeth the rant.)
Re:The NYT is nothing special (Score:1)
Re:The NYT is nothing special (Score:2)
Translation: Bias more in line with my personal beliefs, coverage that I like, analysis that agrees with me.
BBC is no more objective than CNN or the NY Times. You just like its angle better.
Hey, that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of just about every other journalist that you'll find out there.
Perhaps, if you find the time to do some objective analysis of your own, you might read half a dozen stories on the NYT site and then the corresponding stories on the BBC site. I'll bet you my life savings that, word for word, the BBC stories will contain less editorial opinion and more fact.
The NYT is like most newspapers - it has a core readership and it puts an editorial slant on its stories that is designed to appeal to its core audience. On the other hand, the BBC is a publicly-funded independent broadcaster that is mandated to deliver impartial news and programming.
Like I said, if you don't believe me then see for yourself.
Re:The NYT is nothing special (Score:2)
Which is all very well, except for one thing: it doesn't. It's harder for Brits to notice bias in the NYT, and it's probably harder for Yanks to notice bias in the BBC. Which doesn't mean it isn't there, in both cases.
Still getting a feel for it (Score:2)
Anyway, it will be interesting to ask the same question in a month.
Re:Still getting a feel for it (Score:1)
I agree logging in would be messy, but a 3-click (country-state-city) customization process, with the results stored in a cookie, without requiring a login, wouldn't be too difficult for most users.
My big disappointment - news.google.ca doesn't have a Canada section,and news.google.co.uk doesn't have a UK section.
Customizable Front Page (Score:2, Insightful)
Also maybe some kind of MORE NEWS link that showed more headlines from the topic I am reading (such as Science and Technology) that listed more of todays stories that are not necessarily the top stories.
Re:Customizable Front Page (Score:2)
Just click on the "Sci/Tech" label?
Slate has an interesting article too. (Score:3, Informative)
Blarging, scraping and infringing ... (Score:2)
-Sean
It's focussing my aimless boredom (Score:2, Insightful)
It's great for my purpose (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't actually read the stories half the time, just copy the text for later searches. A random smattering of recent stories is just what the doctor ordered half the time, as with most things google, the results of the news searches are, for the most part, highly relevant. Yahoo's searches through AP/reuters never quite did it for me, so it's a welcome edition to my news gathering arsenal.
Slashdot Editors Trolling (Score:4, Funny)
/. dupes (Score:1)
that or
Better watch to see if
Your sig is the subject of a book (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Your sig is the subject of a book (Score:2)
Lamest line in the article (Score:3)
The funniest line in that article had to be:
"What savvy publishers of registration-required sites must do, he says, is work with Google in order to be included in their news searches."
Er, savvy? Really. How about not completely brain dead. It doesn't require savvy or any other synonym for smart to realize that google is a big site and that, if your goal is hits, you should be listed there.
Do 'savvy' webmasters register their sites with search engines? No. They are *way* past that 1994 era stumbling block to glory.
This is no different.
Re:Lamest line in the article (Score:1)
Hell, Kuro5hin got added as a news site (even the diaries), so Poliglut should be able to.
Try emailing news-feedback AT google.com to get your site added. It may not have a high rating, but it will be indexed.
Works for me. (Score:1)
Now I start at google and wander to other sites as needed. The list of news feeds [google.com] to Google doesn't include some of the science sites I enjoy (Nature [nature.com] and New Scientist [newscientist.com]). It might soon as everyone jumps on the Google wagon.
It *was* better (Score:2)
Then Google changed things to look like a traditional news site.
His example of a "redundant link" (Score:2)
If you change the sort to "relevance" it imediatly folds to a single article.
Ongoing experiment (Score:4, Interesting)
The previous layout was a whole lot simpler, just a simple list of categories, top stories within each, and four or five links to that story from different sources. One nice touch was that the link for each story was the headline used for it, which was nice because you could tell at a glance who was just repeating a wire feed and who really had something worthwhile -- and sometimes you could get nicely contrasting stories (like, say, the same event in Kashmir as described by both Indian & Pakistani news sources). The new, more complex & busy layout doesn't allow them to do this anymore, which IMO is a change for the worse.
AS for the new layout, I dunno. It has much higher information density, which the Edward Tufte fan in me thinks is a very good thing. But it's a very busy layout, and so a bit overwhelming to me. I'm finding that I haven't spent as much time on the new version as I was before on the old one, and I'm not checking it as often either -- maybe just a cursory glance once or twice a day, as opposed to a more careful skim several times a day before. Compared to the sparse layouts that Google ordinarily uses, a design this heavy feels very jarring to me, where on another site I probably wouldn't care. Hopefully I'll get over this.
Here's an interesting angle though, from the article [mediainfo.com] the original submitter noted:
Why can't Slashdot come up with such an arrangment? The NY TImes is one of the best news sources on the 'net, and I'm sure their staff has to have at least some Slashdot fans. The constant whining disclaimers about having to register -- and the even more bizarre constant opposition to the very idea -- could all be short-circuited if the two sites could enter into a similar arrangement. Why has this never happened? Lack of imagination, or is one side or the other just uninterested? Whatever the obstacle has been, I'd be happy if we could just get over it and set up some kind of arrangement.
Re:Ongoing experiment (Score:1)
Re:Ongoing experiment (Score:2)
let the hacking begin!
No humans were harmed or even used... (Score:1)
Google news... (Score:1)
Re:Google news... (Score:1)
I want an adaptive news service (Score:1)
Right now I don't subscribe to a newspaper or typically read common news sites because I don't want to wade through tons of stuff that doesn't interest me to find the stuff that does interest me. Slashdot is a partial solution whereby some other group is determining what's interesting whose tastes happen to be somewhat similar to my own, but a news service that adapts to my own personal preferences would be nice. Maybe something like this already exists.
./ is all I need or want (Score:1)
Weak Sauce (Score:1)
The best thing about it is the NYT deal... (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing new here... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course no one really new about this because no one uses AltaVista anymore (at least not their news area). The only reason I knew about it was because Matt Drudge occasionally uses links from there on his page.
And, I guess with Google News you can get any NYT article without registering.
too soon to ask (Score:1)
if you want to know for sure, try asking again in a month or two. people by then will have formed more solid opinions and habits of the site to get a more authoritative answer.
Slashdot's Next Slogan (Score:2, Funny)
Google News algorithm? (Score:1, Offtopic)
brings a tear to my eye (Score:2, Insightful)
At the moment, the sci-tech section shows: National Geographic subliminal tree in a zen garden and Slashdot apple open-sourcing Rendezvous. Tony blair has the headline, and the world section has a story on the ivory coast that I really appreciate that is just the kind of story that I wouldn't see on american news, but would show up on the news overseas.
I love how often it's updated. I can visit it a few times an hour, and it has a great ballance of important stories staying, and fluffy, but interesting stories passing through.
My only wish is that it had a nytimes - style NASDAQ graph or some other indicator of the financial news.
-Jim
Re:brings a tear to my eye (Score:2, Insightful)
You get news stories sorted by relevance or date (more recent is usually more relavent anyay).
Searching for my home town (tiny Hinesburg Vermont) shows me what local businesses have been news-worthy recently.
Searching for manrijuana shows how many protests, busts, and crop damage has happened in the last few days.
Searching for 'Python' (I use the scripting language) shows me that around the world, there have been several dogs, two deer, a cheeta, and goat eaten by pythons. The ones that ate the deer died. So did the deer.
I don't know anywhere else I can search for current events on the web. I'm adicted.
-Jim
Google has a clue (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why I go there -- and have for a long time. Google is what CNN used to be... for me, at least.
The best part of it is that the content comes from a much more diverse set of sources than I'd ever be willing to surf on my own. I'd like to see a full list of the sites they're crawling, but I've been happy with their results so far.
Spelling (Score:1)
No spellcheckers were used in the production of this post to illustrate a point.
Interested but won't (Score:2, Insightful)
But they've got a meta refresh tag in there so that the page continually reloads, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for any site that does that, so I don't plan on making it a regular stop for me unless they take it off.
(Yes, I've already sent email to news-feedback about it)
Gotta love the Fine Print (Score:2)
"This is the BBC" (Score:2)
Love it or hate it, the BBC is the best source of news in the world.
Google is incredible (Score:1)
But this final BETA looks great and that disclaimer at the bottom that some of you have already mentioned is pretty funny.
Missing Link (Score:1)
I always start my daily (minimum) 2 hour news read with /. and Todays Papers on Slate.com, a summary of several of the top American Dailies. Both excellent jumping off points for the morning.
Band reviews (Score:1)