Searching for The New York Times

r.jimenezz writes "Adam L. Penenberg, an assistant professor at New York University, has written an interesting piece over at Wired about the contrast between the New York Times' relevance in the real world and the dismal rankings it gets in modern search engines' results. Penenberg discusses some very interesting ideas about opening up the Times digital archive and the impact this would have on its cyber presence."

Comments

The Times Relevent? Not!

[MindSlap]

Oh..puleeze..
Since the days of Walter Duranty..to the current political 'reporting'..its all just Democratic propaganda...
They have have been proven time..and time again..to be either skewing the truth, not reporting the whole story..or outright lying...

Mod me down... I dont care...
Never let it be said that the TRUTH ever gets in the way of liberal outlets...

Re:Move on to free sources for the same informatio

[0123456]

"So they are supposed to provide world-class journalism"

Which means, exactly? For example, how many stories did they print about the non-existence of WMDs before Bush invaded Iraq vs how many reprints of government press releases?

"and post it on a world-class website and you can't be bothered to host a cookie and look at some ads (which can be easily blocked anyway) in return?"

We're doing them a favor by going to their site for information that's probably available on the web for free. Why should we be the ones paying for it?

Re:Move on to free sources for the same informatio

[SquadBoy]

So run a browser with decen cookie management. End of story. Heres a hint get the fuck over yourself.

Re:Move on to free sources for the same informatio

[focitrixilous P]

As a rule I do not read any newspaper online that I have to register for. In fact, I refuse to purchase the Star Tribune or Pioneer Press here in Minnesota because of their policy requiring user registration. Fake accounts be dammed, you want me to read your paper and have to look through your ads you will let me do so without a cookie linked to information, fake or otherwise.

Umm... You've obviously registered on slashdot, thus accepting a cookie which remains for a very long time. Slashdot has ads to help pay the bandwith bills, or if you don't like ads you have to pay.

You can post AC, and then your blatent hypocrisy is removed. But no, you willingly allow cookies and ads to read it here, even post comments to better the site, potentially drawing more people to view the ads. Why, then, can't other news outlets, those who do a whole lot more investigative reporting than slashdots link policy, display ads and have cookies?

Here comes the logic train, last stop is you.

Let them pay for rankings like everyone else

[gelfling]

Are they too fucking proud and do they imagine they are an unbiased bastion of Socratic wisdom?

They are fucking whores so let them pay for rankings like everyone.

Hey NYT - I have a new job for Jason Blair; Director of Google ranking.