RSS
Twitter
Facebook
E-mail Alerts
Correcting sloppy errors
I sometimes regret talking to reporters, but since I used to be one and remember how I felt when news contacts would not call me back, I always try to get back to reporters when they call. So I called back blogger Steve Friess. He used the interview to write a piece for the New York Times Web site and then used more of the interview to ramble on his blog. He made a slew of errors in his blog. I e-mailed him last night highlighting a couple of those errors. He promised to correct, but that was some 12 hours ago and nothing's happened on the most important error.
He attempts to compare the Las Vegas Sun Web site with the Review-Journal Web site. But, he failed to understand that the R-J's web traffic is housed in two places -- Reviewjournal.com and LVRJ.com. This is unduplicated traffic. To accurately compare R-J web traffic with anyone else, you must take the R-J traffic from both URLs where our content is housed and add them.
Steve uses Alexa.com to make his comparisons. So, if you want to do this for yourself, go to that site and type in the URL. Below is the correct comparison. As you can see, the R-J is exponentially bigger. On any given day, we're one of the larger news Web sites in the U.S. We're always No. 1 in Nevada by a wide margin. When locals and visitors use the internet to find out what's happening in Las Vegas, the Review-Journal is the primary source.
In Steve's blog, he suggests incorrectly (and using bad data as explained above) that the only reason the R-J is bigger is because we were here first and we just, well, lucked into it. That's a sloppy analysis bordering on intellectual dishonesty. The Review-Journal is "lucky" to be No. 1 the same way Tiger Woods is "lucky" to be the No. 1 golfer in the world.
(Click on this image for enlargement.)
Added by Al Gibes, 4/17/08, 12:30 p.m.:
Here is a graph from Hitwise, another independent source for tracking Web visits from U.S. users. The graph below shows traffic on the Reviewjournal.com, LasVegasSun.com, RGJ.com (Reno) and NevadaAppeal.com (Carson City) sites for the past 12 months.
Also, the reviewjournal.com site launched about 15 months after lasvegassun.com launched. They were first. We played catch-up for a while, and have been keeping an eye on them from our rear-view mirror ever since.
This entry was posted on Thursday, Apr. 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
and is filed under The Complete Las Vegan.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
Add a comment! 
15
Responses
to "Correcting sloppy errors"
Friess is an idiot and feels this undying need to correct everyone while not paying attention to his own work. He's a typical finger pointer who quickly plugs his ears as soon as the light is aimed his way.
First, I agree with Yup that Friess is an f-ing idiot. But Sherm is also an embarrassment to anyone with half a brain who believes Las Vegas might some day be a real city.
Friess is an absolute moron. He has many times criticized other journalists for errors but has difficulty acknowledging his own. Why the New York Times or Newsweek use him is beyond me. (It's not who you know...)
Umm, did you read Friess' original post or response? The situation was a lot different than what Sherm wrote here. Also, if you read Steve's blog regularly, you know he acknowledges mistakes on a regular basis -- including in this case. The real trouble is that this town's media is too f--ing scared of any real criticism. Can dish it out, can't take it. Anyone who thinks the R-J's website makes any sense at all is beyond help. These new blogs don't even have RSS feeds!!! Who's running this place?
I read the Sun mainly for laughs, but sometimes they do have good news stories. Most of the time their "news stories" are just editorials full of subjective thought and lacking objective facts.
But the Sun has taken the initiative to improve their website.
The LVRJ.com is very poor website, but I think you are trying harder. Like this blog is an attempt to improve.
I have many years of website development.
I offer my expertise for free to the LVRJ because I really love your paper and want it to succeed. You guys have so much room for improvement.
I know that all papers are struggling with the decline in printed circulation and with trying to figure how to make money off their websites.
I think I could help with that.
But the Sun has taken the initiative to improve their website.
The LVRJ.com is very poor website, but I think you are trying harder. Like this blog is an attempt to improve.
I have many years of website development.
I offer my expertise for free to the LVRJ because I really love your paper and want it to succeed. You guys have so much room for improvement.
I know that all papers are struggling with the decline in printed circulation and with trying to figure how to make money off their websites.
I think I could help with that.
Good comments, save for one hater. Thanks to the non-haters. Let me reinforce a few things. First, paid circulation at the Review-Journal is doing just fine, thank you. Daily will be up in the next audit report, Sunday will be down. But overall, good in the ebb and flow world of paid print circulation. In conjunction will all of our other magazines and newspapers, we're reaching just about everyone in the Las Vegas Valley multiple times a week. We'll be one of the few papers to post a gain in paid circulation. As for the website, our "viewership" is way up year over year (which is one of the things Steve totally screwed up because he fundamentally misunderstood -- or didn't want to understand -- how to calculate the data). And, as for the look and feel of the R-J site, here's rub: We're not going to do a Sun-style revamp only to see our hits go down. Form over substance is always a bad business model. We're not perfect, but we're also not stupid.
Jim, if you read The Sun "mainly for laughs" then you're missing out on some good journalism. Both our local papers turn out great work and we should be thankful to have them.
And Dan, I read Friess' blog periodically. It's the most self-congratulatory tripe I've ever come across. I don't see how his voice doesn't get tired from telling himself how awesome and independent he is all the time.
He's a fool who’s trying desperately to pretend he matters.
And Dan, I read Friess' blog periodically. It's the most self-congratulatory tripe I've ever come across. I don't see how his voice doesn't get tired from telling himself how awesome and independent he is all the time.
He's a fool who’s trying desperately to pretend he matters.
I agree with the others the Friess is an idiot.
I like the R-J in print, but think that your website is a pretty poor product. Look at other newspaper websites in major metro areas, LVRJ.com feels like it is about 5 years behind the times.
When was the last time the site was redesigned? I honestly can't remember...it has to be at least 5 years old.
The Sun's new site is excellent! I think it would be bad business and a mistake to continue to coast along with the old, outdated LVRJ site when your competetion has a great new site. You WILL lose visitors to them if you don't provide a better product.
I know I already find myself visiting the Sun's site more frequently since their redesign.
You have the upper-hand now, so why not produce a better website for your visitors?
I like the R-J in print, but think that your website is a pretty poor product. Look at other newspaper websites in major metro areas, LVRJ.com feels like it is about 5 years behind the times.
When was the last time the site was redesigned? I honestly can't remember...it has to be at least 5 years old.
The Sun's new site is excellent! I think it would be bad business and a mistake to continue to coast along with the old, outdated LVRJ site when your competetion has a great new site. You WILL lose visitors to them if you don't provide a better product.
I know I already find myself visiting the Sun's site more frequently since their redesign.
You have the upper-hand now, so why not produce a better website for your visitors?
Everyone's in agreement: Steve Friess is an idiot.
But that said, the posting by Bobby, underlines one of the basic issues here: The Sun redesigned their web site ... and their hits went down and have stayed down. The stats don't lie. The Review-Journal is looking at a redesign, but won't do anything until we fully understand all the dynamics. When the R-J redesigns, we want the hits to the site to go up. BTW: March hits to the R-J site were a record high.
But that said, the posting by Bobby, underlines one of the basic issues here: The Sun redesigned their web site ... and their hits went down and have stayed down. The stats don't lie. The Review-Journal is looking at a redesign, but won't do anything until we fully understand all the dynamics. When the R-J redesigns, we want the hits to the site to go up. BTW: March hits to the R-J site were a record high.
I have to disagree with Sid. There is no such person as "anyone with half a brain who believes Las Vegas might some day be a real city." Anyone with one does not have the other.
I think Freiss made an honest fallacy, yet one that is logical to someone from the outside of the R-J's domain setup. However, he does like to get into public feuds with people from looking at his blog, so who knows.
I think Freiss made an honest fallacy, yet one that is logical to someone from the outside of the R-J's domain setup. However, he does like to get into public feuds with people from looking at his blog, so who knows.
I understand your point about your websites.
Famous saying: “If it ain't broke then don't fix it”.
If you do a onetime radical change then there is a big potential that your current users will not like it or will get frustrated with trying to find their way around.
Small gradual changes are the smarter way to go.
Famous saying: “If it ain't broke then don't fix it”.
If you do a onetime radical change then there is a big potential that your current users will not like it or will get frustrated with trying to find their way around.
Small gradual changes are the smarter way to go.
While I agree that a project as important as a Web site re-design should be fully understood and spec'd before it is entered into, that doesn't mean that the RJ site isn't horrible and that fixing it/improving it should be a top priority.
With regard to the Sun's numbers with their re-design, have you taken into account that possibility that the re-design there has helped to slow the bleeding significantly and that without it, they'd be even worse off? Of course we'll never know.
It's more than just a pretty layout. It's the use of syndication technologies (RSS), social media (comments), citizen journalism (cell video and photos), and connections to other breaking tech like Twitter. You're positioned to be able to do all sorts of exciting things but you're still asleep.
Citing the 'Breaking News' boxes on the home page as major progress is laughable in my opinion.
I own a Web application production firm and thus I have a bias here - I believe these things are very important.
I think it's sad that the paper doesn't have a fantastic Web site. The resources are there and if circulation is going like gang busters, those improvements can help to finance this project!
Just one man's opinion.
With regard to the Sun's numbers with their re-design, have you taken into account that possibility that the re-design there has helped to slow the bleeding significantly and that without it, they'd be even worse off? Of course we'll never know.
It's more than just a pretty layout. It's the use of syndication technologies (RSS), social media (comments), citizen journalism (cell video and photos), and connections to other breaking tech like Twitter. You're positioned to be able to do all sorts of exciting things but you're still asleep.
Citing the 'Breaking News' boxes on the home page as major progress is laughable in my opinion.
I own a Web application production firm and thus I have a bias here - I believe these things are very important.
I think it's sad that the paper doesn't have a fantastic Web site. The resources are there and if circulation is going like gang busters, those improvements can help to finance this project!
Just one man's opinion.
Sherm wrote: We're not perfect, but we're also not stupid.
I have to disagree. You're certainlly not perfect, and yes, you are stupid.
So now I'll be labeled as one of the "haters." And there's the real rub: if anyone disagrees with the myopic point of view of the RJ's editorial board, they are considered a "hater." Just laughable, since the RJ disparages anyone and anything that doesn't submit to their narrow, lockstep point of view.
Review Journal? Does more harm to the image of Las Vegas than any other single element in Nevada.
I have to disagree. You're certainlly not perfect, and yes, you are stupid.
So now I'll be labeled as one of the "haters." And there's the real rub: if anyone disagrees with the myopic point of view of the RJ's editorial board, they are considered a "hater." Just laughable, since the RJ disparages anyone and anything that doesn't submit to their narrow, lockstep point of view.
Review Journal? Does more harm to the image of Las Vegas than any other single element in Nevada.
Sounds hateful.
Sherm,
I don't think you know the first thing about Web metrics. First, Alexa.com is no way to accurately measure traffic. Now, you may have better Web metrics than the Sun, but you have no proven this to me.
Second, hits are not a Web metric that anyone uses. People talk about page views, visits, unique visitors and time spent but never hits. Hits can be easily gamed. So can page views to an extent.
Even if you have more "hits" (that's not what Alexa is tracking btw) that doesn't mean you have more marketable traffic. The Sun might get more page views per visit. The Sun might get more time spent per visit. The Sun might have better visitor loyalty. These are things Alexa cannot tell you.
Plus, the Sun does RSS, which you do not. Alexa is not tracking that. You would have to combine their RSS numbers with their Web numbers to get a much more accurate portrait of their audience size.
Why don't you offer RSS feeds? This is 2008. Millions of people use RSS daily.
And your Web site is hideous. Whether you choose to admit it or not, the Sun is coming for your lunch. And it's Web site is one of the best in the country. Yours is not even that good for your market.
Innovation is the path to salvation.
I don't think you know the first thing about Web metrics. First, Alexa.com is no way to accurately measure traffic. Now, you may have better Web metrics than the Sun, but you have no proven this to me.
Second, hits are not a Web metric that anyone uses. People talk about page views, visits, unique visitors and time spent but never hits. Hits can be easily gamed. So can page views to an extent.
Even if you have more "hits" (that's not what Alexa is tracking btw) that doesn't mean you have more marketable traffic. The Sun might get more page views per visit. The Sun might get more time spent per visit. The Sun might have better visitor loyalty. These are things Alexa cannot tell you.
Plus, the Sun does RSS, which you do not. Alexa is not tracking that. You would have to combine their RSS numbers with their Web numbers to get a much more accurate portrait of their audience size.
Why don't you offer RSS feeds? This is 2008. Millions of people use RSS daily.
And your Web site is hideous. Whether you choose to admit it or not, the Sun is coming for your lunch. And it's Web site is one of the best in the country. Yours is not even that good for your market.
Innovation is the path to salvation.
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.