Hey, there! Log in / Register
63 local Web sites you must see before you die - and this one
By adamg on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 1:39pm
Michael Prager does a nice job with his list of must-see Boston Web sites.
It got me to thinking, though: New blogs pop up around here all the time. How to find them? A lot of them submit their URLs to the Boston Blogs directory. But I should probably start highlighting the new ones here. So here goes with the first batch:
Phantom of the Movies
"Great Movies, Great Stuff."Sacred Cods and Holy Mackerals
"Following Massachusetts politics is both my hobby and profession. I feel I bring with me a unique perspective as both an idealist and pragmatist, who knows what goes on in the smoke-filled backrooms and why, yet still holds out hope for good government that is responsible to and held accountable by We The People. Hopefully through this blog I can bring you, the reader, some additional information on what really goes on in the marble corridors of the State House. Sorta like a 'spin-free zone,' but without the douche-iness and pomposity. This will also be a 'whackjob-free zone,' so leave your xenobhobia, paranoia, and general hostility towards mankind at the door."Dracut Musings
"A Dracut guy's take on state and national politics."
Topics:
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
ballsy
Are they looking for backlinks to Boston.com, or are they really recommending entire sites (not just specific articles) that are effectively competitors for eyeballs?
I would check Boston.com more, except someone recommended UniversalHub, which quickly became my primary aggregator of local news.
On second thought, becoming friendly with the existing sites might be exactly what the Globe needs to do. Anyone can build a blog or aggregator (and the smarter people could be more agile than Boston.com), but few local people have the resources and experience to do original reporting like the Globe. Get everyone sending viewers to Globe pages (with advertising) throughout each day, and let any stickiness and community features of Boston.com be a soft-sell and gravy. Is that the thinking, and is that viable?
Interesting idea
Instead of trying to get eyeballs to boston.com, sell ads on local blogs and keep a cut. Everybody wins: The Globe gets a new ad medium, blogs get a bit of ad money, advertisers get a more local market (as opposed to people from who knows where following Google News to boston.com stories). Or you could just advertise on the Boston Blogs Network (Conflict-of-interest note: Guess who runs that?).
The model can work. IDG, which runs its own newspapers/magazines/Web sites, is now acting as an ad network for tech blogs (Conflict-of-interest note No. 2: I work for an IDG publication).
However, if Boston.com Newton is an example, the Globe is trying the reverse approach: Using other folks' content to try to drive eyeballs to their own site (i.e., aggregating stuff).
As for the Globe Magazine piece, though, they actually point to entire sites, not specific articles (and with links! Yay, Globe Magazine). I'm betting the editors saw it as an interesting thing to write about by itself, not as an attempt to get links to boston.com.
I hadn't thought of them
I hadn't thought of them being an ad broker. Though I guess that would be obvious, had I not been thinking more from the editorial side of the Chinese wall. They have to be careful to be more than just a middleman, and keep leveraging that original local content, or some national/international firm would eventually eat their lunch. Perhaps NYTCo. could be one of the ones to do this on a national/int'l scale, starting wit NY and Boston.
On the editorial side, I like the two-pronged strategy of relying on aggregators to promote Globe original content, and simultaneously being an aggregator oneself. It fits the Internet, it continues to leverage the Globe's original content, it hedges a bet, and it puts them more in the loop as the technology advances.
A key here is recognizing the value of original content, and investing in it. I'm talking about solid journalism by first-rate staff, not printing AP stories, not "community" content from people who want to see their pet photos "in the paper," not so much citizen journalism. There's not much future in compromising your one strength to focus on things that almost anyone can do from their kitchen table.
Chinese Wall and stuff
That wall ain't what it used to be, not when everything is measurable and reporters at Web-centric media outlets are held accountable for the number of pageviews their stories get (which has both good and bad points: Good because it can focus Editorial on what readers are really interested in, Bad because sometimes it seems what they're really interested in is stories about hound dogs adopting cute little kittens).
Warning: Bloviating approaching:
Let's not assume that the collapse of Traditional Media means people are no longer interested in news. People still seem as interested as ever as knowing what's going on. But there are two kinds of "reporting." One is the "Why is this trolley no longer moving" or "Why are there six police cars and a mobile command center down the street?" sort of instant reporting. It's interesting to see the number of posts on B0st0N LiveJournal that start something like "Did anybody hear an explosion just now? I searched all the news sites and didn't see anything about it." It's even more interesting to see people reply with some part of the story. Blogs are just great for this - along with the slice-of-life reporting that I obviously love so much when it comes to the T.
The other kind of reporting is the in-depth coverage (so why did Danvers just blow up? Why did that building collapse?) and investigative reporting that professional journalists are so good at, and which bloggers really can't replicate. Eventually, somebody's going to figure out how to marry the two - and make money at it.
Back in the day
Back in the day (internet-wise), I remember efforts to do micro-costing of web material. Supposedly, you could set up an account, and they pay pennies for access to web sites. The first time I read about it was the last. If you could get people to pay a nickel for each story, you might be in business. The ad-based revenue just isn't profitable enough, unless you're on the scale of Google. The NY Times couldn't get people to pay for their "star" columnists, so I doubt anyone else in the MSM will. Once people get used to a free meal, the restaurant business doesn't look so good.
Micro-advertising, not micro-content
I agree: Nobody's going to pay 5 cents to read an article (look at Salon). But there's a real market here for advertisers who can't afford boston.com rates but still want to reach local readers. Think Google Ads, but for restaurants in Roslindale, hardware stores in JP, etc.
It's a different kind of ad sales than big expensive banners, but it can be done - and you can see the Globe experimenting with it on their Newton site (although they're already way behind Google itself, based on the local ads I see). And if only I were better at selling stuff, you'd be seeing a lot more of it here and across the other Boston Blogs sites.
Perhaps the fusion will come
Perhaps the fusion will come from the bloggers before it comes from traditional media organizations.
For example, a few years ago (?) Josh Marshall at political commentary blog TPM started hiring staff to do original investigative reporting.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Don't be too modest
Adam G is also profiled in Boston Globe Magazine today.
...and they're all hyperlinked!
I don't think I can handle this! They could have left at least one plain text :-).
Why did I sell???
Congratulations, Adam. I have to say, I had never heard of the majority of the sites. I think there's a shallow well of quality blogs / sites in our fair city.
I am wondering:
"Is the Universal Hub using blog titles in the forms of questions in order to increase SEO results?"
If I were?
Would I be rich beyond my wildest imaginings?
And if I'm not, what does that say?
And, you know? I am so lucky? That the kidlet? No longer talks in string of questions?
Was the list too light?
Thomas Garvey (whose blog is not on the list) writes:
Bostonist, which did make the list, snarks about how the snarky the article was.
where is Jay Fitzgerald's Hub Blog?
Surely it deserved a place on that list.
What does that say for Adamg?
Funny, not only was UHub on there, but they directly acknowledged the deeper analysis/criticism that Adam often directs at the Globe right in the article that Garvey is complaining about! If Garvey is right (and I suspect he is at some level), then that speaks VOLUMES about their vocal acceptance to both recognize Adam's site here and his frequent consternation with the Globe's writing/markup/etc.
Lame
I'm sure this Garvey guy writes good stuff, but I don't think the Globe article's reporter had any bias, one way or another.
I often criticize the Globe's coverage of real estate, and I've been known to call the National Association of Realtors "NAMBLA" by mistake.
I don't write for the "mainstream media", nor does Adam. So, there are two examples of where his argument doesn't hold.
Or should I say, I don't ... yet.
Now there's a scary idea!