From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 12:58:24 MDT
Brian Atkins writes:
> Here is a related article today talking about how companies must pay
> attention to their online reputation:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/23/technology/23REPU.html
Ironic given that NYT's reputation (online or off) has gotten a huge hit
recently with the Blair fiasco.
I also note that while the article freely links company names to NYT's
stock charts, the mention of the reputation research website is just
given a partial written URL (w/o protocol, leading me to think there's
some new browser that will link full URL's given in text w/o an anchor
tag), specifically 'databases.si.umich.edu/reputations/'.
I understand NYT was recently in a tiff over Google ranking blogger's
responses to NYT articles higher than the original article themselves,
and they (NYT) were shredded by the blogosphere (see
http://www.nytimes.com/robots.txt for a laff).
Of course, if NYT did link directly to
http://databases.si.umich.edu/reputations/ they would be upping that
site's Google pagerank, at no econmomic benefit to NYT, heavens to betsy.
One might compare archives for the Guardian with NYT, afaik the former's
archives are open and free forever (though they no doubt delete stuff
when mandated by the Official Secrets Act), while the latter is closed.
Alfio Puglisi writes:
> Why should we set
> up a lab and analyze each and every different brand, when this is basic
> information that should be released from the start? It's a zero cost for
> the producer, that already knows those values.
Similarily, one might think (pre-Blair) that NYT editors did
fact-checking with some or other type of list of facts (or assertions).
I'd like to see these as an RDF file. Then you could have individual
assertions proved or disproved more readily than the current method
where bloggers pour over NYT content and write journalistic rebuttals.
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 13:06:43 MDT