Comments on: Announcing the launch of Journalism Enterprise.com http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/ A conversation. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:45:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Blog roll out: Developing a successful blog format : Performancing http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3934 Blog roll out: Developing a successful blog format : Performancing Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:13:11 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3934 [...] contacts than Facebook to use for the blog promotion already. Very smart is the idea to combine the new blog announcement on his blog with the force of a blog carnival on Carnival of Journalism in January. That’s [...] [...] contacts than Facebook to use for the blog promotion already. Very smart is the idea to combine the new blog announcement on his blog with the force of a blog carnival on Carnival of Journalism in January. That’s [...]

]]> By: Mich http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3926 Mich Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:14:28 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3926 If it's an either-or situation, then posting reviews “to the team 24 hours" prior to publication doesn't really work. I sympathize with how delicate time can become as well as working with volunteers; however, you say there’s a 24-hour policy when in fact, it’s more like an if-you-have-time or an if-anyone-wants-to policy. Which is fine. It’s your site. I just think that the methodology should be clear. I also don't think you should say "either-or." It's one of those cup half-full / half-empty things. I say, go big. If the “real editors” are the blogosphere, then I think you’re right – a larger signpost is needed. As it stands now, I have to click on the title of the post and then click on “comments” to read what these editors have to say. As you said, the review is just the start. So, I look forward to seeing the finish. Best, If it’s an either-or situation, then posting reviews “to the team 24 hours” prior to publication doesn’t really work. I sympathize with how delicate time can become as well as working with volunteers; however, you say there’s a 24-hour policy when in fact, it’s more like an if-you-have-time or an if-anyone-wants-to policy. Which is fine. It’s your site. I just think that the methodology should be clear.

I also don’t think you should say “either-or.” It’s one of those cup half-full / half-empty things. I say, go big.

If the “real editors” are the blogosphere, then I think you’re right – a larger signpost is needed. As it stands now, I have to click on the title of the post and then click on “comments” to read what these editors have to say.

As you said, the review is just the start. So, I look forward to seeing the finish.

Best,

]]> By: paulbradshaw http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3927 paulbradshaw Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:50:03 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3927 Beta testing has been done, and so far there's been no abuse. Hence, no stamping. Does an editor watch what his reviewers have watched? No. But if his reviewer writes something ridiculous, it's picked up. Anyway, the real editors here are the blogosphere. As I said, the review is just the start. And it is either-or: either you review what someone else has, or you review something they haven't. Few volunteers have time to do both. Beta testing has been done, and so far there’s been no abuse. Hence, no stamping.
Does an editor watch what his reviewers have watched? No. But if his reviewer writes something ridiculous, it’s picked up. Anyway, the real editors here are the blogosphere. As I said, the review is just the start.
And it is either-or: either you review what someone else has, or you review something they haven’t. Few volunteers have time to do both.

]]> By: Mich http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3928 Mich Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:37:23 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3928 I suck at HTML, so, please bear with me. You said: "But rather than cripple the site before it’s gotten going by over-restrictive practices, I’m waiting to see if it happens before I stamp on any abuse." My bad. I don't mean to be Darren Downer. I assumed that with the announcement, you were ready to roll and that beta-testing had been completed. Clarification question: I'm confused how a 24-hour objection period is helpful unless the team as a whole has reviewed the site. Otherwise, how would they know what to object to? And in that case, wouldn’t that constitute as “more” reviews that could also be published? You said: "I'm not against more than one person reviewing any site - but I'd prefer to review more sites." This seems framed as an either-or scenario. I assume that’s not your intention, and that you want both—is that correct? I think it's a wonderful idea. I look forward to seeing how it progresses. I suck at HTML, so, please bear with me.

You said: “But rather than cripple the site before it’s gotten going by over-restrictive practices, I’m waiting to see if it happens before I stamp on any abuse.”

My bad. I don’t mean to be Darren Downer. I assumed that with the announcement, you were ready to roll and that beta-testing had been completed.

Clarification question: I’m confused how a 24-hour objection period is helpful unless the team as a whole has reviewed the site. Otherwise, how would they know what to object to? And in that case, wouldn’t that constitute as “more” reviews that could also be published?

You said: “I’m not against more than one person reviewing any site – but I’d prefer to review more sites.”

This seems framed as an either-or scenario. I assume that’s not your intention, and that you want both—is that correct?

I think it’s a wonderful idea. I look forward to seeing how it progresses.

]]> By: paulbradshaw http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3929 paulbradshaw Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:06:41 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3929 You're right - there are potential pitfalls. But rather than cripple the site before it's gotten going by over-restrictive practices, I'm waiting to see if it happens before I stamp on any abuse. That said, there are some processes in place: team members post their review to the 'team' as a whole 24 hours before it can go live, and any objections have to be dealt with before it is published. They cannot publish until they have had one review accepted. And they agree not to review sites they have any connection with (including receiving money). Sites are suggested by anyone, and are chosen by anyone. At the moment we're not overwhelmed by leads, so pretty much all sites are getting seen. Again, if that changes we'll look at filtering. I'm not against more than one person reviewing any site - but I'd prefer to review more sites. And the review is only the starting point - comments should be a place for others to add their dissent, etc. But I think that could be more clearly signposted and encouraged. Thanks for giving me food for thought... You’re right – there are potential pitfalls. But rather than cripple the site before it’s gotten going by over-restrictive practices, I’m waiting to see if it happens before I stamp on any abuse.
That said, there are some processes in place: team members post their review to the ‘team’ as a whole 24 hours before it can go live, and any objections have to be dealt with before it is published. They cannot publish until they have had one review accepted. And they agree not to review sites they have any connection with (including receiving money).
Sites are suggested by anyone, and are chosen by anyone. At the moment we’re not overwhelmed by leads, so pretty much all sites are getting seen. Again, if that changes we’ll look at filtering.
I’m not against more than one person reviewing any site – but I’d prefer to review more sites.
And the review is only the starting point – comments should be a place for others to add their dissent, etc. But I think that could be more clearly signposted and encouraged.
Thanks for giving me food for thought…

]]> By: Mich http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3933 Mich Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:52:56 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3933 @Paul: Witty, ha. I thought I might get a little sh*t for this. My apologies. I certainly don't mean offense. I'm a fan. I subscribe, I often point to you, etc. However, I looked at this from a different angle. Here's what I mean: How are your reviewers qualified? Who are they, and why should I care? This could easily be squashed with reviewer bios and by allowing multiple reviews. In its current state, it comes across as a personal blog with comments, and I don't believe that's what you're going for. That said, I feel this could easily turn into a tit-for-tat situation where your reviewers look at the periphery, and potentially miss some crucial voices and functions in and of journalism Web sites. What's in place to prevent JE from being took over by ill bias or turning into someone else's "favorites" or "bookmarks" or "worst of" list? I assume there are guidelines in place for reviewers, how sites are chosen, etc. What are they? To give you an example of a site that does something similar is metacric.com. The entertainment review site compiles reviews from multiple authors and assigns a ratings system that's easy to understand. The "user" reviews don't feel second-hand. This way, it feels very much like a community-driven effort and I'm not reading what just one person thinks. @Paul: Witty, ha. I thought I might get a little sh*t for this. My apologies. I certainly don’t mean offense. I’m a fan. I subscribe, I often point to you, etc. However, I looked at this from a different angle. Here’s what I mean:

How are your reviewers qualified? Who are they, and why should I care? This could easily be squashed with reviewer bios and by allowing multiple reviews. In its current state, it comes across as a personal blog with comments, and I don’t believe that’s what you’re going for. That said, I feel this could easily turn into a tit-for-tat situation where your reviewers look at the periphery, and potentially miss some crucial voices and functions in and of journalism Web sites. What’s in place to prevent JE from being took over by ill bias or turning into someone else’s “favorites” or “bookmarks” or “worst of” list?

I assume there are guidelines in place for reviewers, how sites are chosen, etc. What are they?

To give you an example of a site that does something similar is metacric.com. The entertainment review site compiles reviews from multiple authors and assigns a ratings system that’s easy to understand. The “user” reviews don’t feel second-hand. This way, it feels very much like a community-driven effort and I’m not reading what just one person thinks.

]]> By: paulbradshaw http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3932 paulbradshaw Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:33:45 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3932 Thanks for the witty review! Will take some of your points on board, particularly the bios. What do you mean by "proof of validity"? Not sure what you mean by either being 'in' or 'out'/Cliquester, though - anyone can join. Thanks for the witty review!
Will take some of your points on board, particularly the bios. What do you mean by “proof of validity”?
Not sure what you mean by either being ‘in’ or ‘out’/Cliquester, though – anyone can join.

]]> By: Mich http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3931 Mich Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:15:24 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3931 What do they say it is? Journalism Enterprise.com will review Web sites that are attempting to make money from journalism in the new media age. Consider it a TechCrunch of journalism startups. What do I say it is? Blogroll with paragraphs. Clique-ster. Project J-Way. What's great about it? You're either in, or you're out. What could be better? Less sarcasm. More transparency. Proof of validity. Reviewer bios... How is it going to make money? Most likely to be used as a vitae hit. Should I pay any attention? The overarching attempt to replicate word of mouth seems to miss the bucket entirely. At least in its current state. What do they say it is?
Journalism Enterprise.com will review Web sites that are attempting to make money from journalism in the new media age. Consider it a TechCrunch of journalism startups.

What do I say it is?
Blogroll with paragraphs. Clique-ster. Project J-Way.

What’s great about it?
You’re either in, or you’re out.

What could be better?
Less sarcasm. More transparency. Proof of validity. Reviewer bios…

How is it going to make money?
Most likely to be used as a vitae hit.

Should I pay any attention?
The overarching attempt to replicate word of mouth seems to miss the bucket entirely. At least in its current state.

]]> By: giornalismi possibili : Nuove imprese col nuovo giornalismo, un sito documenta sforzi e idee http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3930 giornalismi possibili : Nuove imprese col nuovo giornalismo, un sito documenta sforzi e idee Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:21:40 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3930 [...] Onlinejournalismblog , un sito che si definisce ‘’uno dei più influenti siti in UK sul giornalismo’’, ha annunciato qualche giorno fa la nascita di un nuovo nuovo blog. Si chiama Journalism Enterprise.com e, come annuncia il nome, analizza i siti web che investono e sperano di fare soldi col giornalismo nell’ epoca dei new media. In pratica una sorta di TechCrunch delle startups giornalistiche. [...] [...] Onlinejournalismblog , un sito che si definisce ‘’uno dei più influenti siti in UK sul giornalismo’’, ha annunciato qualche giorno fa la nascita di un nuovo nuovo blog. Si chiama Journalism Enterprise.com e, come annuncia il nome, analizza i siti web che investono e sperano di fare soldi col giornalismo nell’ epoca dei new media. In pratica una sorta di TechCrunch delle startups giornalistiche. [...]

]]> By: Making money with journalism « Global Vue http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3918 Making money with journalism « Global Vue Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:18:13 +0000 http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2008/01/14/announcing-the-launch-of-journalism-enterprisecom/#comment-3918 [...] journalism project - we’ll cover it.” They do nonprofits too, and are seeking helpers. See details at the Online Journalism Blog from the [...] [...] journalism project – we’ll cover it.” They do nonprofits too, and are seeking helpers. See details at the Online Journalism Blog from the [...]

]]>