Most people that have known me for awhile will probably agree I display a certain dry wit and am a natural smart alec. My wry, sarcastic personality is generally directed toward myself or social, political, institutional or cultural situations, events and trends. When directed at someone else it's always meant in good humor and jest — if I don't value, respect or care about you, I wouldn't take the time to rib you.
Of course, sometimes that sentiment doesn't always translate and can be misinterpreted.
So a public apology to my colleagues at our sister paper, The Troy Record, in case my latest infraction was noticed yesterday.
In drafting up our daily news budget (the detailed outline of what news stories and photos are running in the next day's print edition and on what pages they will appear), I'll often inject what I think is a little humor into the process with a glib description of the story, a line or two in the the "notes" for each story that is meant to elicit a chuckle, etc.
What I sometimes forget is that my co-workers at The Record have access to our editorial system, in which we draft up our budgets. So when I take a jab at them on the budget (we sometimes share stories of mutual interest/relevance to our readership -- for example, the trial of Joe Bruno), they can see it. Gentle chiding or comments that would be made with a nudge, nudge, wink wink, "you-know-I'm-only-foolin'" mentality don't always translate to print.
Bottom line, sometimes I make myself look like an ass.
So, for the record (and for The Record): My colleagues in Troy are a hard working, dedicated group of people. We all face the same challenges in putting out a daily newspaper, several weeklies and, of course, maintaining a Web site. We're joined by our victories as individual publications and as sister publications, and bonded by the same sweat, tears and frustrations put into those victories. My respect for what they do is through the roof and I would never disparage that.
Ramblings on media issues and trends, technology, higher education, and human culture in the digital era.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
By the Numbers: October 2009
One thing I like to do is keep track of our site analytics: page views, unique vistors and such. I especially like to track the numbers of our staff blogs.August and September 2009 saw traffic decreases across nearly the entire board, a fact that greatly alarmed some here in the newsroom (scroll to the comments underneath the linked-to-post to discover one's idea of how to rectify the matter). Did the numbers rebound in October? Let's visit the tallies.
As always, the number is monthly page views for each blog, with the percentage change compared to the previous month given in parentheses.
October 2009
1) Andrew Bernstein's Saratoga City Desk: 9,060 (an 80.6 percent increase)
2) Mareesa Nicosia's In the Biz: 2,770 (a 28.7 percent increase)
3) Stan Hudy's Diary of a Mad Sportswriter: 2,575 (a 56.6 percent increase)
4) Barb Lombardo's Fresh Ink: 545 (a 7.3 percent decrease)
5) TiW: 485 (a 6.6 percent increase)
5) Saratogian Sports' Extra Points: 244 (an 11.4 percent increase)
An almost all-encompassing rebound. The City Desk's spike in numbers can probably be attributed to approaching elections and a cyber jihad launched against reporter Andrew J. Bernstein and the anonymous (so he/she/they would claim) consortium of bloggers at one of the Spa City's newest, more (most?) reprehensible blogs.
In the larger scheme of things: Could the upswing in The Saratogian staff blogs serve as early indicators to a broad economic recovery across the nation? Our business analysts are currently reading the tea leaves on that one. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
2009 Election Night live blog a success
Some impressive numbers last night over at the Saratoga City Desk as we live-blogged election results. We'll crunch the digits shortly.
First, a big thank you to everyone who checked the blog out. We do it for you, of course, so hopefully you found it both informative and entertaining. I mean, there's no reason reporting/reading about one of the fundamental cogs of our society can't be enjoyable.
Second, a big round of applause for our crack reporting staff on the ground at the Democratic and Republican camps, phoning in observations, quotes and numbers. (Wisely, we opted to give our reporting staff on crack the night off.) My phones (office and cell) were ringing constantly, and when not ringing, chiming with updates sent via text message. At times I would literally have my cell go off just as the office phone nestled back into the cradle.
A little hectic, but it was a blast.
On to the numbers.
The Saratoga City Desk blog had a total of 3,027 unique visitors on Tuesday: 1,004 between 9 and 10 p.m. and 976 between 10 and 11 p.m. The number dropped to 376 during the day's last hour, but that's no surprise. Staff was busy finishing/editing stories and getting them on the page for the print edition, and the live blog was declared over.
The larger column for Nov. 4 is just a projection
of traffic based on previous data.
As of the 3 o'clock hour this afternoon, the blog has seen over 500 unique visitors.
Granted, the visits for the live blog were less than we saw for the one we did for the March 30th special election between Jim Tedisco and Scott Murphy, but that race covered a much larger constituency.
Overall, www.saratogian.com had 21,831 unique visitors on Election Day; as of this writing (3:30 p.m. on Nov. 4, 2009) 8,323 unique visits have stopped by today (1,954 in the hour between midnight and 1 a.m.), which is already about 1,800 more visitors than we had on all of Nov. 2.
Update: 6:51 p.m.
Actually, seems the numbers I was quoting for Saratogian.com above were pulled from the monthly report for unique visitors. The daily report puts the numbers as follows: 8,109 on Nov. 2 (Monday); 24,824 on Nov. 3 (Tuesday); and as of this update, 14,616 on Nov. 4.
The difference is explained this way: The daily numbers are the "number of unique people that are visiting your site each day. This allows you to authoritatively say how many unique people were on your site each day of the month. The total unique visitors for the month however, shows the number of people visiting your site each month. This means that if a visitor's stay spans several days or even if a visitor leaves your site and then comes back later the same month, she will only be counted once in the total for the month.
So again, thanks for tuning in!
This reminds me: For all of my regular tens of readers, I'll have my "By the Numbers" feature, where I break down monthly traffic to The Saratogian staff blogs, ready to go sometime this week (which probably means you should look for it sometime NEXT week. Am I right, or am I right?)
First, a big thank you to everyone who checked the blog out. We do it for you, of course, so hopefully you found it both informative and entertaining. I mean, there's no reason reporting/reading about one of the fundamental cogs of our society can't be enjoyable.
Second, a big round of applause for our crack reporting staff on the ground at the Democratic and Republican camps, phoning in observations, quotes and numbers. (Wisely, we opted to give our reporting staff on crack the night off.) My phones (office and cell) were ringing constantly, and when not ringing, chiming with updates sent via text message. At times I would literally have my cell go off just as the office phone nestled back into the cradle.
A little hectic, but it was a blast.
On to the numbers.
The Saratoga City Desk blog had a total of 3,027 unique visitors on Tuesday: 1,004 between 9 and 10 p.m. and 976 between 10 and 11 p.m. The number dropped to 376 during the day's last hour, but that's no surprise. Staff was busy finishing/editing stories and getting them on the page for the print edition, and the live blog was declared over.
The larger column for Nov. 4 is just a projectionof traffic based on previous data.
As of the 3 o'clock hour this afternoon, the blog has seen over 500 unique visitors.
Granted, the visits for the live blog were less than we saw for the one we did for the March 30th special election between Jim Tedisco and Scott Murphy, but that race covered a much larger constituency.
Overall, www.saratogian.com had 21,831 unique visitors on Election Day; as of this writing (3:30 p.m. on Nov. 4, 2009) 8,323 unique visits have stopped by today (1,954 in the hour between midnight and 1 a.m.), which is already about 1,800 more visitors than we had on all of Nov. 2.
Update: 6:51 p.m.
Actually, seems the numbers I was quoting for Saratogian.com above were pulled from the monthly report for unique visitors. The daily report puts the numbers as follows: 8,109 on Nov. 2 (Monday); 24,824 on Nov. 3 (Tuesday); and as of this update, 14,616 on Nov. 4.
The difference is explained this way: The daily numbers are the "number of unique people that are visiting your site each day. This allows you to authoritatively say how many unique people were on your site each day of the month. The total unique visitors for the month however, shows the number of people visiting your site each month. This means that if a visitor's stay spans several days or even if a visitor leaves your site and then comes back later the same month, she will only be counted once in the total for the month.
So again, thanks for tuning in!
This reminds me: For all of my regular tens of readers, I'll have my "By the Numbers" feature, where I break down monthly traffic to The Saratogian staff blogs, ready to go sometime this week (which probably means you should look for it sometime NEXT week. Am I right, or am I right?)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Candidate videos: Ouch
I. Will. NEVER. Do. This. Again.
Well, I shouldn't say that. I guess it really depends on how useful readers found it.
I knew cutting an hour-long interview into short snippets would take some time, as I've done it before. However, I failed to factor in how God-awfully time consuming editing EIGHT hour-long interviews would be.
Perhaps it would have been more wise to slap entire interviews online. In fact, my boss even encouraged me to do so. However, at that point I had already posted interviews of the Department of Public Works and Finance candidates, and was nearly done with the set of videos for the second Department of Public Safety candidate; that left only the mayoral candidates, and I didn't want to break from the format.
More importantly, I felt it was of greater benefit to the reader to present short videos (most average between two to three minutes) on clearly specified topics than a 55-60 minute video that only three REALLY conscientious voters would have watched in their entirety.
So hopefully folks found the videos of some use, a chance to hear candidates speak on topics during a more relaxed, on-the-record but casual conversation.
I found most all of the candidates to be well-spoken and to present their cases clearly. In particular I found the conversations with the Finance and Mayoral candidates very informative, and I really struggled to condense their interviews into watchable video clips while still doing them justice. I hope I achieved a level of success, but unfortunately it's safe to say that a lot of their cogent points remain on the cutting room floor.
I'm sure there are nuts out there that will analyaze why X candidate got A number of videos while his opponent got B number of videos, or why Z candidate was primarly on the left side of the frame while Y candidate was on the other.
I was on board with some of the endorsements The Saratogian handed out, unconvinced on others. That's the way it goes, though. There's an argument out there that newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates, and that's a valid discussion to have; however, when a newspaper does so, it's important to understand that it's because candidates have been sized up and weighed evenly by a jury of individuals comprising an editorial board; each offers their input and (sometimes) debate on the final decision.
Endorsements go on the Opinion page for a reason. In that sense, it's no different than an editorial, and you don't hear too many arguments against newspapers publishing editorials.
If for whatever reason you're reading this on Election Day and need some last minute info to help make up your mind before you head to the ballot, head over to www.saratogian.com/elections for videos, endorsements, news coverage, candidate capsules, etc.
Well, I shouldn't say that. I guess it really depends on how useful readers found it.
I knew cutting an hour-long interview into short snippets would take some time, as I've done it before. However, I failed to factor in how God-awfully time consuming editing EIGHT hour-long interviews would be.
Perhaps it would have been more wise to slap entire interviews online. In fact, my boss even encouraged me to do so. However, at that point I had already posted interviews of the Department of Public Works and Finance candidates, and was nearly done with the set of videos for the second Department of Public Safety candidate; that left only the mayoral candidates, and I didn't want to break from the format.
More importantly, I felt it was of greater benefit to the reader to present short videos (most average between two to three minutes) on clearly specified topics than a 55-60 minute video that only three REALLY conscientious voters would have watched in their entirety.
So hopefully folks found the videos of some use, a chance to hear candidates speak on topics during a more relaxed, on-the-record but casual conversation.
I found most all of the candidates to be well-spoken and to present their cases clearly. In particular I found the conversations with the Finance and Mayoral candidates very informative, and I really struggled to condense their interviews into watchable video clips while still doing them justice. I hope I achieved a level of success, but unfortunately it's safe to say that a lot of their cogent points remain on the cutting room floor.
I'm sure there are nuts out there that will analyaze why X candidate got A number of videos while his opponent got B number of videos, or why Z candidate was primarly on the left side of the frame while Y candidate was on the other.
I was on board with some of the endorsements The Saratogian handed out, unconvinced on others. That's the way it goes, though. There's an argument out there that newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates, and that's a valid discussion to have; however, when a newspaper does so, it's important to understand that it's because candidates have been sized up and weighed evenly by a jury of individuals comprising an editorial board; each offers their input and (sometimes) debate on the final decision.
Endorsements go on the Opinion page for a reason. In that sense, it's no different than an editorial, and you don't hear too many arguments against newspapers publishing editorials.
If for whatever reason you're reading this on Election Day and need some last minute info to help make up your mind before you head to the ballot, head over to www.saratogian.com/elections for videos, endorsements, news coverage, candidate capsules, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)