Hey, there! Log in / Register
Next up: Pictures of people listed in the phone book
By adamg on Fri, 03/05/2010 - 10:49am
Oh, come on, boston.com, you're not even trying any more. Having played out the idea of "photos of people who look like other people" and "photos of dogs who look like their owners," the site is now reduced to running photos of random Boston-area pets - taken by Boston Magazine, no less.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Hang on now...
...the real "WTF?" aspect of this is why Boston.com is linking to Boston Magazine. Huh? Was there some pact signed in some dingy bistro that we're not aware of? Have they joined forces (snicker) in some way?
"Any more"?
The front page editor has a hard-on for those awful party photos of badly-dressed rich people drinking at fundraisers and bar mitzvahs. Random pet photos is a step up from there.
I'm always astounded that some of the stuff at boston.com's RAW photo page are of such high quality, yet they keep featuring the twaddle prominently atop the main page.
And let's not forget ...
The wonderful Big Picture.
The yin and yang of photography on boston.com, I guess.
Big Picture is an awesome
Big Picture is an awesome blog. The Big Shots blog is also great, but less traveled (based on comment volume): http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/bigshots/
I'm growing increasingly frustrated with Boston.com, especially the terrible commenting on articles. They really need to adopt a better model where insightful, non-trolling comments get modded up and idiots get modded down into oblivion. There are countless examples across the web of this strategy being used with success. Additionally, I'm tired of articles that talk about something but lack any pictures, videos, or links of any kind to allow me to see what the hell they're talking about. Dead-tree media will continue their rapid death march so long as they suck at embracing the not-so-new "web" medium.
Like this mess
Like this mess of an article today, purportedly about the Media Lab's "$90 million building designed by Pulitzer Prize-winning architect".
Aside from the blatant error -- the architecture prize is the Pritzker, not the Pulitzer -- there's a poorly-composed video, yes, that has NOTHING to do with the building that's supposedly the subject of the article, other than "We sit over here and they sit over there" -- brilliant! Beyond that it's all grad student stand-ups about the whiz-bang projects they have in mind. Not a link, not a single photo of the structure itself.
I guess when you assign an architecture piece to a technology guy clueless about anything that doesn't have an LCD screen, what you get is totally, completely lame.
It's a technology article, not an architecture story
Although it's a cool building, the article and video rightly focus primarily on the activities and projects that occur within the lab, rather than on the building's form. What you're seeing in the video is a quick tour of yesterday afternoon's open house, which I also attended.
(There's no excuse for the Pulitzer/Pritzker error, however -- which is even replicated in the headline of both the printed and online articles.)
Yer right, it's a tech piece
I guess I misunderstood because the sub-head and the first seven (7) grafs are about the building, then he gets to the whirry-blinky stuff at the end, as kind of an afterthought.
Anyway, they've fixed the Pulitzer/Pritzker problem now in the online version.
Big Shots
I didn't even know it existed, and I consider myself at least an occasional sports fan. Does Boston.com or the Globe promote it anywhere, at all, ever?