There is a full page advertisement for this in the printed The New York Times today. I was not sure what it was, but I came to this site because the ad told me to do so for more information.....
Ok, it worked, in getting me here.
But how much more valuable might this have been, and how much more certain could the advertiser have been in print that I would make the electronic leap?
It seems to me that this uncultivated territory starting with what appears as inked content on the page of a newspaper and winding up with the person seeing that content actually doing something of value to the customer and anyone providing something more needs a lot more creative care and feeding.
There seem to be so many ways to do this better from the print through to what you see on your screen when you first enter that eletronic link. Being dumped onto a home page that does not recognize how I got here seems like someone simply forgot to think about this in planning the campaign.
Friday, April 30, 2010
"Doctors: Let Me Pay You for E-Mails" - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com
Having just had a highly successful exchange of e-mails with my ophthalmologist in the the US, while I was overseas, I completely agree that offering such a service makes huge good sense!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Anonymous "writers"
We all keep reading chilling stories of how so many people are deeply affected by what they find online about themselves. Some even commit suicide, as we tragically see far too often.
It seems to me that a huge part of the problem stems from the accepted norm for so many that when they go online they can transform themselves into someone or some thing that they are not. It might be through some complicated avatar application, or as simple as an anonymous posting on a website.
What I think is needed is a concerted effort to encourage all of us, including all ages and in schools, etc. to stop hiding behind pseudonyms. If we are not prepared to stand behind what we create and place on public view in the web, we shouldn't be doing it. The limited circumstances in which it is appropriate to "post" anonymously are, just that, limited.
It seems to me that a huge part of the problem stems from the accepted norm for so many that when they go online they can transform themselves into someone or some thing that they are not. It might be through some complicated avatar application, or as simple as an anonymous posting on a website.
What I think is needed is a concerted effort to encourage all of us, including all ages and in schools, etc. to stop hiding behind pseudonyms. If we are not prepared to stand behind what we create and place on public view in the web, we shouldn't be doing it. The limited circumstances in which it is appropriate to "post" anonymously are, just that, limited.
"Students Protest School Budget Cuts in New Jersey" - NYTimes.com
Newspapers can only dream of having this much impact on the markets they serve, alas.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
"Learning About U.S. Immigration With The New York Times" - The Learning Network Blog - NYTimes.com
You know, there is something very impressive about this, and something sorely missing.
It is an impressive collection of useful resources. Those who want to poke and prod specific issues and individual news stories can do so. That's all well and good.
What's absent, tho, is something that no newspaper of which I am aware actually does. It is a wiki-style (meaning only that it is subject to easy editing on the "fly") piece that is like a news story that might appear as an encyclopedia entry. In other words, take the immigration issue and all of its tentacles and put them together into about 1,000 words that sums up the state of immigration issues at this moment, making editorial judgments about what's important enough to include and what is not. I tend to think that the Arizona law would appear in any such piece, but the piece I envision would not lead with it, most likely. Instead, it would be placed in the context of the bigger picture of US immigration issues.
Most importantly, this 1,000 word piece would be kept up to date by the Times and would be a place to which any of us could turn for the most current complete picture instead of as now, the breaking news only for the most part plus lots of resources through which information diggers can dig!
Why is no one doing this? Sure, resources. But, sure - too, value!
It is an impressive collection of useful resources. Those who want to poke and prod specific issues and individual news stories can do so. That's all well and good.
What's absent, tho, is something that no newspaper of which I am aware actually does. It is a wiki-style (meaning only that it is subject to easy editing on the "fly") piece that is like a news story that might appear as an encyclopedia entry. In other words, take the immigration issue and all of its tentacles and put them together into about 1,000 words that sums up the state of immigration issues at this moment, making editorial judgments about what's important enough to include and what is not. I tend to think that the Arizona law would appear in any such piece, but the piece I envision would not lead with it, most likely. Instead, it would be placed in the context of the bigger picture of US immigration issues.
Most importantly, this 1,000 word piece would be kept up to date by the Times and would be a place to which any of us could turn for the most current complete picture instead of as now, the breaking news only for the most part plus lots of resources through which information diggers can dig!
Why is no one doing this? Sure, resources. But, sure - too, value!
Monday, April 26, 2010
"Memo From New Delhi - Indian Justice Inches Closer to Chapters of Violence - NYTimes.com"
I tried to add this article to my bookmarks in Internet Explorer for an upcomin trip to India. For some reason, I could not do this, although I could bookmark other pages and other parts of the NYTimes site. How does one explain this?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Using the web effectively to tell time-sensitive stories
I wonder why it is that almost no sites with which I am familiar are operated in such a way that they can explain what's going on with complimentary media when users of those media encounter the unexpected, for example. Suppose a newspaper has a printing problem; which newspaper would post this immediately on its website. I am in France and was expecting to see a program on a television channel here at a specific time. The earlier program continues and no announcement of what happened to the one I wanted to seee. Why is this not explained nearly instantly on the station's website?
It's a mystery to me.
It's a mystery to me.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Stimulus Plan for Rail Line Between Tampa and Orlando Shows System of Weak Links - NYTimes.com
This is a really important issue - the question of how one gets from a starting point whether it be home, business, hotel, other destination - to the public transport. Even here in France where I am as I type this is a problem, even in good-sized cities like here in Nice. I can walk 2 minutes to one bus and take it to a tram and then wait up to 7 mins for the tram and take it to a 5 min walk from the train station or I can walk 7 mins, wait for the bus, and take it directly to the train station. But I can only do either if it is between 7 in the AM and 8 at night. That precludes early AM or late PM train travel, AND it means that it takes twice as long, if not longer, to take the bus or buses than it would to drive, even though parking would make even a day trip about 10 times as expensive as the bus.
It's all a giant tradeoff.
But imagine if we started with all of this from scratch. We'd all be living much closer to transport or simply not using it. Or accepting the inbetween. We were not given and reallly are not given the first choice very often or in a very well planned manner from an individual's stanpoint. Everything is done from the vantage point of a driver in a car, and that's the big problem with where we find ourselves today.
It's all a giant tradeoff.
But imagine if we started with all of this from scratch. We'd all be living much closer to transport or simply not using it. Or accepting the inbetween. We were not given and reallly are not given the first choice very often or in a very well planned manner from an individual's stanpoint. Everything is done from the vantage point of a driver in a car, and that's the big problem with where we find ourselves today.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health care costs
One of the issues relating to the health care discussions we're winessing seems to get little attention.
It is how we individually calculate the cost of our health care.
It's not just out-of-pocket expenses as they are normally noted.
One piece is just that - what we pay out of our pockets for doctors, health services and pharmaceuticals that are not reimbursed or covered by insurance. (Not included is the impact of insurance companies negotiating or insisting on low fees and how even those fees are affected by overall costs born in part by others; here, I am just sticking with the expenses we can individually itemize.)
A second critical piece - if one is fully allocating the costs we must cover - is what we pay in insurance premiums. (Not included in that is what people are not paid in salary because employers are diverting that money to pay for their share of insurance premiums.)
And, finally, there is the all other - non-prescription medications, health products, gym memberships, costs of participating in athletic activities, transportation expenses related to health care, and probably a few others.
Only when we add all of that up INDIVIDUALLY can we have a fair idea of what we pay for health care of all sorts.
Calculating the full cost - removing insurance benefits and lower fees because of insurance - is worth doing just to put it all in perspective.
No?
It is how we individually calculate the cost of our health care.
It's not just out-of-pocket expenses as they are normally noted.
One piece is just that - what we pay out of our pockets for doctors, health services and pharmaceuticals that are not reimbursed or covered by insurance. (Not included is the impact of insurance companies negotiating or insisting on low fees and how even those fees are affected by overall costs born in part by others; here, I am just sticking with the expenses we can individually itemize.)
A second critical piece - if one is fully allocating the costs we must cover - is what we pay in insurance premiums. (Not included in that is what people are not paid in salary because employers are diverting that money to pay for their share of insurance premiums.)
And, finally, there is the all other - non-prescription medications, health products, gym memberships, costs of participating in athletic activities, transportation expenses related to health care, and probably a few others.
Only when we add all of that up INDIVIDUALLY can we have a fair idea of what we pay for health care of all sorts.
Calculating the full cost - removing insurance benefits and lower fees because of insurance - is worth doing just to put it all in perspective.
No?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
"ABC News Under Fire For Payment To Murder Suspect" - NPR
What troubling news this is and brings into question, at least, the professional judgment of the entire ABC News organization. What a shame on the heels of the Christiane AMANPOUR announcement and after the very unhappy news of the staff cutbacks. Something seems to be very wrong there.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
"Fess Parker, Star Of 'Davy Crockett,' Remembered" - NPR
With the loss of Fess PARKER and Peter GRAVES this week, my Saturday morning childhood - or at least what I remember of it - died, too. (Even today, I find myself occasionally humming the Davy Crocket song.)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
"Op-Ed Columnist - The Spirit of Sympathy" - NYTimes.com
What David BROOKS writes here applies in important ways to the evolution of the internet and how media cope with it all. It's interesting to think about the concept of "groups" when considering a news story, or any other content and news organization might provide. The whole notion of "crowds" and "groups" online complicate the process of human interaction in ways I don't think we've yet fully considered. The very good things that all the technology does for us does not come without some negatives, and if we ignore them entirely, we may wind up in the "fix" that BROOKS describes now characterizing US national legislative political decisionmaking. Here is a very good example of a big negative, reported today.
"BBC News - Digital Giants: Jimmy Wales"
I am especially interested in how WALES intends to use in Wiki technology to compile the stories of geographically-defined communities for the people who live in those places.
"Op-Ed Columnist - The Biden Effect" - NYTimes.com
I agree with most of this excellent piece except the inalienable commitment to Israel part. I'll only buy that if married with an inalienable commitment to a Palestinian state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
