"Our ability to succeed will depend on attracting and conversing with an extraordinary community of users, and on whether that community likes what we're doing."
You don't need extraordinary users to succeed – look at Gothamist.
I have been wondering the exact same thing. The article about Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is unreadable! As far as I can tell, the only potentially interesting thing is the interactive events calendar, which doesn't actually exist yet besides in posts claiming it will exist?
This article has been changed from its original version: Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is the second highest-grossing production in the company's downtown space, not across all its programming; the Public also operates the popular Shakespeare in the Park program.
I'm still trying to figure out if the fact that every third contributor apparently used to write about opera for the Observer is an inside joke or not.
RSS feed in the wrong place, no alt texts, poor semantics, forces new windows for links (how 1997), and, in a truly Awlesque touch, divides up small articles into different pages to fraudulently increase pageviews.
Submission Grinch: Pagination isn't a fraudulent technique. The argument can be made for it to be an effective way to navigate editorial content. A shameless gallery whoring for page-views is another deal altogether, but The Anarchists' Cookbook Approach to Web Content is tired and lame. Stop.
Well, my policy is: always be nice to new websites! (Except when you really can't, sorry, new website for men that launched a couple weeks ago.) But. It's a good thing to have more things on the Internet!
And it's their first day! They've spent a week in beta working on kinks, which was smart, because they fixed a number of them. (CERTAIN other websites, ahem, by which I mean this one, should have done that for sure.)
For those that do not love Capital now, you may come to love them! (You may not ever, but that's okay.)
Just so Foster doesn't think I'm a "complete dick[]…predictably," while I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier comment above (or is that against The New Nice or too meta-enabling or another one of those things I still don't understand the actual meaning of), I really DON'T understand what Capital New York is, what its purpose is, and why I should care.
Yes, I read their About Us and still am not clear what their "vision" is. Are they a general interest blog/magazine interested in quality reporting on New York politics? Are they another "New York is the center of the worrrrrrrrrrrld! Yay!" blog? Maybe I'm just a moron, but I don't see the overarching theme. Of course, the same could be said about The Awl. I mean, really, what is all y'awl about, anyway? Yet I still love you guys (even if everyone is a complete dick).
As for not caring, I've just seen a lot of (well, in terms of the relative promotion other websites opening up gets) promotion for it here and in Awl-friendly Tumblrs and such, so I thought there some sort of big "deal" about it. When I visited this morning, though, I didn't see anything earth-shattering, so I, yes, wondered why I should care and why other people seem to.
So that's my defense against a random line in Foster's Tumblr that made me feel like a Bad Person. I have a very boring job, so the fifteen minutes it shaved off my workday was much appreciated.
Oh, and BTW, I did read and very much enjoy the article they had on the Gowanus Canal.
No offense, but who cares about Albany?
This will never not be funny.
"Our ability to succeed will depend on attracting and conversing with an extraordinary community of users, and on whether that community likes what we're doing."
You don't need extraordinary users to succeed – look at Gothamist.
Yay! Wait, what is Captial New York, and why should I care?
Can someone explain what I'm supposed to like about this site? I've been reading in beta and ???
I have been wondering the exact same thing. The article about Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is unreadable! As far as I can tell, the only potentially interesting thing is the interactive events calendar, which doesn't actually exist yet besides in posts claiming it will exist?
Unreadable AND nonsensically corrected:
This article has been changed from its original version: Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is the second highest-grossing production in the company's downtown space, not across all its programming; the Public also operates the popular Shakespeare in the Park program.
Which doesn't "gross" ANYTHING.
Wake me up when schenectady gets an internet broadsheet.
Also funny.
Now with more fart jokes!
I'm still trying to figure out if the fact that every third contributor apparently used to write about opera for the Observer is an inside joke or not.
RSS feed in the wrong place, no
alttexts, poor semantics, forces new windows for links (how 1997), and, in a truly Awlesque touch, divides up small articles into different pages to fraudulently increase pageviews.So hey: Let's not?
Also, all writer links go to Josh Benson or Gillean Reagan. Heyyyooooo.
Submission Grinch: Pagination isn't a fraudulent technique. The argument can be made for it to be an effective way to navigate editorial content. A shameless gallery whoring for page-views is another deal altogether, but The Anarchists' Cookbook Approach to Web Content is tired and lame. Stop.
Well, my policy is: always be nice to new websites! (Except when you really can't, sorry, new website for men that launched a couple weeks ago.) But. It's a good thing to have more things on the Internet!
And it's their first day! They've spent a week in beta working on kinks, which was smart, because they fixed a number of them. (CERTAIN other websites, ahem, by which I mean this one, should have done that for sure.)
For those that do not love Capital now, you may come to love them! (You may not ever, but that's okay.)
This is good policy! And really I'm giving it the old College try! I just don't, um, "get it" is all.
I AM SURE IT IS ME.
Just so Foster doesn't think I'm a "complete dick[]…predictably," while I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier comment above (or is that against The New Nice or too meta-enabling or another one of those things I still don't understand the actual meaning of), I really DON'T understand what Capital New York is, what its purpose is, and why I should care.
Yes, I read their About Us and still am not clear what their "vision" is. Are they a general interest blog/magazine interested in quality reporting on New York politics? Are they another "New York is the center of the worrrrrrrrrrrld! Yay!" blog? Maybe I'm just a moron, but I don't see the overarching theme. Of course, the same could be said about The Awl. I mean, really, what is all y'awl about, anyway? Yet I still love you guys (even if everyone is a complete dick).
As for not caring, I've just seen a lot of (well, in terms of the relative promotion other websites opening up gets) promotion for it here and in Awl-friendly Tumblrs and such, so I thought there some sort of big "deal" about it. When I visited this morning, though, I didn't see anything earth-shattering, so I, yes, wondered why I should care and why other people seem to.
So that's my defense against a random line in Foster's Tumblr that made me feel like a Bad Person. I have a very boring job, so the fifteen minutes it shaved off my workday was much appreciated.
Oh, and BTW, I did read and very much enjoy the article they had on the Gowanus Canal.
Exactly!
And I have my very own BTW: I REALLY REALLY REALLY enjoyed this piece on Eataly. Super good.