Sunday afternoon. Watched a movie, Big Morris came over and we talked rubbish, the usual.
Then I'm sat here thinking 'interactivity' and 'news delivery' and I start-a-musing. Is it just me, or has Google News gone really crap? Their definition of 'news sites' seems to now include a gaggle of 'uncanny bobbo' and 'odd' Web sites that could best be classified as the online scrapings of their category. Why? Well, they've gone and tried including blogs, but only some blogs. The crap ones. Ones you'll never have heard of, and most of the ones you have heard of are just plain bad with weak weekend content or sites that exist only to draw in those AdWords clickers (you lucky 2% you) and scraped from the big boys. When I'm doing a news search, I want news site - not blogs, not left-wing conspiracy sites, or right-wing religious crackpots. News. Give me information, not shite.
To dig a deeper hole, Google's news search does Jack-all to make it's results even close to relevent. It looks promising when you do a search for a piece of 3 hour old news and Google News returns a few hundred entries, but when 95% of those results are the same repackaged stories from Associated or Reuters, then clicking around looking for interesting news is largely a waste of time. You're better off finding a dozen or so good news providers that do unique work and going to them instead. This is why I have RSS and my own agrigator in Sage/Firefox.
The web is the news delivery system of the future. I used to work in online news delivery and, as a service, we can react quickly . As an industry we understand that those on top now will become the readers trusted information delivery service of the future. Google is doing nothing to help (the reader or the industry) so why bother using it when we have the power of choice.
Nice evening in, in front of the fire/telly with Jema, not watching Torchwood ;-(