Alright, so I check out the 4 suggested news sites for this Thing. I am not personally a news junkie, so I hadn’t looked at this type of site before. It is interesting. I can see how this might help when the need of current events rears its head. Instead of running away in fear, I can now go and find all the relevant, and not so relevant, breaking news for those events. Or maybe not. Apparently the story needs to be popular to be relevant, not necessarily informative. It could just be entertaining.
So we come to the crux of why many people find Web 2.0 applications to be non research tools; too much user input with little or no authority control. Hmmmm. I can see sites like this as being good spring boards in moving towards breaking news and events. The stories are decent and mostly from reputable sources, but whether or not a story that provides more precise information and coverage on a topic will not necessarily be a determining factor in it being prevalent on one of these sites. Further exploration of a topic would need to be recommended.
In looking at the 4 sites, I did them in order listed on the 23 Things blog. So first I looked at Digg. I found this fairly easy to navigate. When you click on an article title, you are brought straight to the article, which I liked. The site’s navigation is broken into tabs, which is very easy to move through. The screen is a little cluttered, but not to the point of distraction.
Next I looked at Reddit. It is very similar in function with Digg, but I found it unappealing aesthetically. Is that a good reason to like it less? Why not, I’ve got to draw a line somewhere. It is not cluttered, but the navigation felt kind of 10 years ago. Small point to be sure. One thing that I did get out of looking at the 4 different sites is that there is some cross over in stories, not complete cross over. So how does one find the best source or evaluate which site is more productive for him/her? I suppose that since everything is user derived that it depends on the range of participants on any given site. Would one age group be more drawn to one design over another? Or is there a base line bias in the users, like on the cable news networks. Hmmm.
Third, I looked at the third site listed. Shocking, I know. So Newsvine was very much like the first two. I found two main differences. The first is that I really liked the look and feel of the site better. It used better colors and had a nice layout. Second is that the articles I tried to access did not go directly to the articles, but to synopsis pages written by the people who found and are calling attention to the article on the site. At least one article did provide the full text, but it was still on the Newsvine site. I wasn’t as hip on that aspect.
The fourth and final site was Mixx. It didn’t really add or detract form the whole experience. I found it adequate. Again the site did not bring you directly to the story, but kept you on the same site with a link. Since I liked the colors and the feel of Newsvine better, I think it is the nicer of the two. Overall, I liked Digg the best. Newsvine looked more appealing, but I prefer to link directly to the story and not need to click again to get it.
That is it for Thing 11. It is good to know that these exist and how they work, but I don’t see them as crucial for research. They are worth looking at from time to time.
U_T