Message me
Discussion is in the comments. Brad told me to start this thread instead of pestering him with it. So be it!
Ask WC: Should the Windy Citizen front page have more than 10 slots?
node/15647 - 7 weeks ago - 371 views
27 Comments Have your say. Vote up the best responses. ↓
Reactions on the web
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/weex)
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/weex)
Invite your friends
Top Weird Stories This Week
9
Comments
If you're looking for more turnover or a different kind of content, I think the answer is to just participate more on the site.
Post stories. Upvote. Downvote. Comment.
It will affect the front page far more profoundly than any change in format.
If you're going to expand the front page, would it be worth considering expanding it by channel? Instead of having the top posts from across all channels, have say, the top five each from News, Arts and Entertainment, Sports, Business and People? That would at least insure a mix of items.
Another option would be dividing the front page so that both the most popular and the very newest posts appear.
I think something to consider outside of usability — do 10 headlines represent the face of Chicago everyday? Because that is what WC does, right? Here is a voice of Chicago, showing the news that is most important. Some days I feel like 5 would be enough, others I feel like we could use 50. But on average, is 10 enough to represent the most important news in Chicago, or do we need more?
I think 10 works. I'm pretty sure a number of people get turned off to certain web sites when they have to scroll down a lot.
Expand it out to 25 on the front and 25 in the latest. See how that works.
Also, we can submit stuff without links now?
(It's good to see the Blue/White color scheme back!)
Just a small comment -- about 'cute' stories. Can you put them together in a different space? a box? They add something (I'm not sure what) but shouldn't compete with real news ... based on my own reading habits.
I click on the buttons to see the other stories. 10 works fine for me.
The cute stories have their place. In their defense, I notice they often get more comments than the "serious" stories. When was the last time we had a big discussion thread about public housing......has that ever happened? As the site grows, I think we'll pick up more people who are into that stuff but right now the community seems to like a mix.
It's not. 10 is a nice number, but seeing more stories is a good thing
Maybe have tags and WC could have general topics sorted by the tags. Then you could get your more meaty topics separated from the cute topics. BTW, I like unsalted peanuts.
We have categories already. I doubt any of the silly stuff is showing up in the "politics" category.
Here's my thoughts:
I check the site several times a day. While some posts have great discussion and are worth having on the front page so you can continue watching those discussions take place, other posts don't have much discussion but get lots of votes and continue to stay put.
So, basically, you end up following 2-3 threads a day at most. Meanwhile, there's a backlog of stuff in the "Latest" section that are about to "tip" and go front page, but they don't really make it. And maybe if they did, then they'd have people talking about them.
So, what if the slots were expanded to 15 or 20? Just to offer more variety and visibility? This means more odds of there being interesting comment threads to follow throughout the day.
Thoughts?
I am completely open to expanding the front page. The current churn rate (or relative lacktherof) is on my radar. There are ways we can do stuff about it, but maybe people have some ideas of their own that are much better than mine (this is likely.)
I'd be in favor of expanding the front page, too, or at least having it turn over a bit more. Do you need to make votes "less powerful" or "more powerful"?
I'm down for more variety, which would increase the chances for more and perhaps better discussions.
I'd say start at 20, which I think was tried for a short while this summer, then back it down to 15 if that isn't working or it's too much.
I liked the short amount of time that WC had a 20 item front page. I recall you doing that shortly after revising the algorithm for getting to the front page earlier in the summer. It's reasonably tough to get there now, and a lot of stuff that ends up on the front page ends up being kind of cute, but ultimately dumb. The picture of a pot plant found in Rogers Park last week (maybe week before?), for instance, taking up a whole day in the #2 spot. Expanding the list to 20 might allow for more exposure to legitimate articles.
Either that or moving to some sort of different algorithm a-la Propeller that turns items over more quickly, which has it's downsides as well.
Great point about "cute" posts getting top billing for the entire day, but not being "discussion worthy" after the initial click.
Maybe the algorithm could promote articles with "active discussions" to keep it frontpaged longer, and those that don't get comments fall off quicker?
Or maybe you just use magic beans to solve this problem?
I think perhaps the "active discussion" weighting ultimately is detrimental, as it kind of moves things to the front page more easily that only regularly active commenters are interested in. I don't mind, really, that the cute stuff hits the front page and stays there. However, I am very much a passive browser of most sites, and rarely move beyond the front page on sites like this or Propeller or Digg. In view of my laziness to click another time, and I doubt I'm alone in this, it kind of sucks to see a 10 item front page where three items are cute, but ultimately drivel.
Right now some weight is given to the number of comments left on a story. They're given less consideration than the number of votes because some stories can generate 50+ comments very quickly.
In defense of the pot plant, though, that story generated hits like crazy. It was in the top five total daily pageviews for over a week.
The number 10 has a certain simple elegance to it. Everybody understands "Top 10".
So yeah, I dig 10 for aesthetic reasons.
We are getting a lot of submissions now. Many times I see stories buried quickly, not because they are a bad story, but because they were posted at a busy time. Making it so having two or three votes will sneak a story into a 19 or 20 spot would send more eyes to it and keep it from getting buried by new submits.
I am for the 20 on the front page.
On this idea, maybe at least expanding the "Latest" stories pagination to have 20 stories per page? This way you can see more of what's recently submitted and what you might vote up.
I think the problem might be getting exposure to the stories stuck in the "Latest" page. I think when people see stuff on the front page, you might be less inclined to upvote it, if only because the story's popular already.
I agree, 10 has a certain accepted value when it comes to lists, but the site should prob find an algo that allows for greater churn....
Maybe there should be a 24-hour maximum time limit for stories on the front page? This way no "old" content is lingering around, taking up a slot from a newcomer?
This is a great idea although maybe it should be longer than 24 hours.
As far as the original question, I'm for at least trying out a longer front page. I agree that sometimes things that are worthy of attention aren't making it to the front page, probably because people aren't necessarily going to the "Latest" page to vote them up. If more stories were front and center, maybe there would be more voting and more discussions.
well, if not 10, then my Pythagorean sense of aesthetics would dictate that I support a "Top 20"
Post new comment