Joe, I'm not doubting the differences. I'm merely saying that the
methodology of the rankings is so full of holes as to render the data useless.

I still stand by that statement. And I'd say it even we were on top.

By the way, we've been touted quite a bit in the net press recently, so if
you don't hear about us it's probably because you're listening to your own
limited crowd. We all do that from time to time.

- --Jeff


At 05:06 PM 8/28/96 -0700, Joe Shea wrote:
>
>	Actually, it's not useless, Jeff.  It demonstrates that a lot of
>people read The American Reporter and that they don't read the LA Times!
>That's not to say we have more than a fraction of your print readership,
>but I hear very little about your site now that the launch is over.  By
>contrast, the New York Times site is prominent in discussions everywhere, 
>as is Reuters.
>	There are important differences between the LA Times and The Am-
>erican Reporter that a popularity poll is quick to recognize.
>	You are only on one Web site, remember; we are on our own and more
>than 100 (sson to be 230, with add-ons being ISPs) in 16 states and
>Canada.  Yours is a local paper with national news; ours is a national
>paper with international news.  We are a small, almost personal newspaper
>that carries no advertising and comes in the email each day to subscribers
>who request and pay $100 a year ($5 Web-only) for it; yours is free and
>full of ads, and one has to come to the site and read it with the right
>browser (my lynx version can't view it). Yours cost hundreds of thousands,
>if not millions, of dollars to develop; ours cost nothing.  You have a
>dozen or more full-time employees, yet no dedicated correspondents, I
>would bet; we have 40 contributing AR correspondents and columnists in the
>states and abroad, and most of their work is exclusive to us.  You don't
>break stories the Times itself has broken, but republish them; we break
>original news stories that no one has published.  There are important and
>appealing differences that the popularity poll really does recognize.  I
>think the Times is a great newspaper, but I doubt that it has much appeal
>online because it so much like the off-line product.  Ours is a Net 
>original, a hybrid of the old and the Net.
>
>Best,
>
>Joe Shea
>Editor-in-Chief
>The American Reporter
>joeshea@netcom.com
>http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html
>
>
>On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Jeff Perlman wrote:
>
>> Joe, the plain simple truth is that the data are worthless. Get over it. 
>> 
>> --Jeff
>> 
>> At 02:52 PM 8/28/96 -0700, Joe Shea wrote:
>> >
>> >	As Eric said in his last post on this topic, Jeff Tindall's 
>> >assertion about our readership has no basis in anything he said.  In 
>> >fact, Jeff made it up out of whole cloth.  
>> >
>> >	We first publisshed the poll, and as is the custom in rpint, we
>> >distinguish our own paper's name in any list of others.  WIRED's list
>> >stopped at The American Reporter at no. 10; in response to Jeff Perlman's
>> >comment, they did not make the WIRED Top 10, because at the time the poll
>> >was taken last fall, the Prodigy disaster overtook the LA Times site; they
>> >have now regrouped are doing a little better. 
>> >
>> >	Eric's gobbledygook aside, there were 25,000 responses to the poll
>> >published in WIRED, and it was done by the University of Texas Mass
>> >Communications Dept.; Eric's had "well over 2,500" responses and was done
>> >by him.  I think a university's methods are probably pretty sound.  That
>> >is not to say Eric doesn't know what he is talking about; only that I have
>> >no idea what he was talking about. Polling methodology is not an area of 
>> >interest for me.  Shocking, huh?
>> >
>> >
>> >Best,
>> >
>> >Joe Shea
>> >Editor-in-Chief
>> >The American Reporter
>> >joeshea@netcom.com
>> >http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Jeff Tindall wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>We're really hearing a promotional pitch...<<
>> >> >>Here is the Top 10 and beyond poll that was published in WIRED magazine
>> in March...<
>> >>    9. Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
>> >>    10. THE AMERICAN REPORTER
>> >>    11. Clarinet (newsgroup based)...
>> >> >>Best,
>> >> Joe Shea
>> >> Editor-in-Chief
>> >> The American Reporter<<
>> >> 
>> >> Hmmm, I wonder if Wired Magazine used them ALL CAPS on the #10 group, or
>> >> if a little "editorial licence" was practiced in reposting this. In
>> >> fact, Eric's top ten list says the AR got "less than 0.3% of the total
>> >> vote."
>> >> 
>> >> Speaking of a "promotional pitch"... I wonder who's pitching and who's
>> >> catching?  :-)
>> >> 
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> >> This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS.
http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html
>> >> 
>>
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> >This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS.
http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>
>

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS. http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html

------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #767
*********************************


From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Thu Aug 29 15:47:54 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA03002 ; for ; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:47:53 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00555 for online-news-outgoing; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 08:54:16 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00546 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 08:54:11 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id IAA19334; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 08:43:59 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from gatekeeper.nytimes.com by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id IAA28323; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 08:43:56 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from mailgate.nytimes.com by gatekeeper.nytimes.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/30Mar95-0352PM)
	id AA27361; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:48:13 -0400
Received: from ts07-nyt.nytimes.com by mailgate.nytimes.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/25Jul94-1134AM)
	id AA07183; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:47:59 -0400
X-Sender: meislin@mailgate.nytimes.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: <9608281903.AA06372@mailgate.nytimes.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: online-news@planetarynews.com