Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What's Next For Google News

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the love-the-traffic-but dept.

Google 59

Stony Stevenson writes in with a Computerworld interview with a Google product manager talking about what's coming up for Google News, such as the possible addition of a video component and closer cooperation with YouTube. "One of Google's most popular and controversial services, Google News, is the aggregation and search site that media companies love to hate because it has become a major source of Web traffic and frustrations for many of them.... 'In an ideal world, Google News would show you who broke the story and the other articles that built on that. There are places where we're not doing that perfectly today.'"

cancel ×

59 comments

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253727)

Re:fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254177)

Some random other post probably about the 20th or something!

Streaming Video (4, Interesting)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253737)

and their own team of reporters would be nifty. Google TV and maybe re-stream CSPAN, etc... I'd like to see that at least.

Re:Streaming Video (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253985)

Or live sports scores of THE MOUNTAINEERS!

WOOT!

Re:Streaming Video (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254059)

lol that would be nifty. Have a MSN stream (not Microsoft, but Mountaineer Sports Network).

Re:Streaming Video (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 7 years ago | (#19258887)

Why would i want this? This push to videofy the web isn't such a great idea. One of the nice parts of google news (or yahoo news or whomever) is that I can get various stories in a decent format and read the day's news in a few minutes. In video a few minutes is barely the intro. And the sensationism that usually goes with televised news. and the 3 minute weather report. I dont need a 3-minute weather report. I just put my zipcode into weather.com. Not to mention, like a lot of people, I cant even watch streaming video at work.

Seems like just a giant waste of bandwidth. I hope the web doesnt degenerate into just an expensive way to watch TV.

EPIC (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253775)

We get closer to EPIC [albinoblacksheep.com] everyday.

Re:EPIC (5, Funny)

rockout (1039072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255903)

Are you kidding me? I'm supposed to listen to that entire thing? I want my predictions of media-in-the-future presented to me in easily digested 30-second sound bites, dammit.

In fact, I've already lost interest in typing th

Re:EPIC (1)

HobophobE (101209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19260601)

Ideally we'll start doing that (as funny as it is). Video and audio should be chunkable (and formats need to be developed to do that (or do they already exist?)) Presentations like EPIC should be 'chapter' indexed and easily paused and skipped through.

We're heading to a world of alternative views. Why should I have to right click->properties as opposed to right click->context menu? The interface is different, but the information contained in both is identical. The development and design of the future needs to take that into account and automate it. We need algorithms to create GUIs rather than hard-coding it all.

In other words, information needs to be more malleable.

Re:EPIC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19259289)

Oh. You're back. Wonderful...just...wonderful. Great.

(Not.)

Good and Bad (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253811)

Finding the links and publishing who really got the scoop and who were the followers might seem like a good idea. But already there is such a great rush to publish, such a system will give more incentives to "publish first verify later" attitude.

May be Google could maintain the records of false reports, reports that were later corrected etc and come up with a "trustability" coefficient for the reporters and reporting organizations. This will probably give some incentives to verify the reports.

Re:Good and Bad (4, Interesting)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254145)

One of the problems I could foresee with this will be an issue of credibility and a lot of mishmashed news. E.g. (US version) "Military personnel targeted and destroyed a terrorist training camp" ... (Arabic version) "US Military personnel bombed innocent children today..."

Who's going to determine which view of the news is correct and incorrect. Its different when you can read and infer as opposed to having someone verbally tell you their representation. PsyOps/Intelligence personnel from any country could/would have a field day with this video idea.

Re:Good and Bad (4, Insightful)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254271)

I don't think "mishmashed news" would be a problem for me. I think showing both sides of the story allows people to gather a lot more information and decide for themselves what really happened. It seems like all too often people will simply believe what they're told by the most convenient media outlet and leave it at that. By aggregating all the news from worldwide sources, Google could allow people a much broader view of the world.

Re:Good and Bad (3, Insightful)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254485)

Only where there are two sides and where both are equally valid. Showing "both" sides of most controversial topics today basically requires you to show one insane position without any evidence to back it and then one that does have evidence.

Re:Good and Bad (2, Insightful)

engwar (521117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19259787)

I hope you're not implying that the US-centric version is always the 'valid' side and the one that might show the US in a negative light is always the 'insane position'.

Pretty please? You're not that naive, right?

Re:Good and Bad (1)

Virtual_Raider (52165) | more than 7 years ago | (#19265059)

I'm all for bashing good ol' US when appropriate but it seems to me GP was referring to issues such as Global Warming vs Deniers. The latter lack any peer-reviewed credible evidence of their position, these days respectable scientific debate is divided between those who believe GW is human-made versus those who don't think so but its existence is pretty much an accepted fact*

Or Evolution vs Intelligent Design. Evolution is a scientific theory susceptible of verification and deniability whereas ID is a proposed explanation but its not a theory: one can't test it so it is not deniable*

*Please note that these are the accepted mainstream scientific positions, that doesn't necessarily make them true, being scientific implies that one be open to be found in error. You are all welcome to disagree with my ideas but please use arguments rather than biting my head off =)

US internal polictics (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 7 years ago | (#19267095)

I suspect he was referring to US internal politics...

Seen from my point the dividing line in US politics seem to be between right wing extremists and right wing lunatics. Showing "both sides" in such a situation does not really bring any additional light to the subject.

Re:Good and Bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19256177)

I don't want to decide for myself what happened. The truth is objective ... what happened is what happened. I want one spin-free, complete, factually accurate article, not ten hacks. That having been said, I don't think we will see all sides of the argument until the automated translations are good enough to bring us the stuff in other languages. I suspect that nowadays most all the English language articles are often much the same regardless of their physical location, and all the Arabic sources tell the same story but a different one from the English ones.

Re:Good and Bad (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254613)

That pressure already exists; good journalists are assumed to be those who get stories first. People want papers that report news first, and journalistic awards rarely go to follow-ups. This pressure has separated news reporting into two camps, the authoritative trustworthy sources (newspapers of record, BBC News etc) and those with less scruples - in Britain Channels 4 and 5 always have plenty of retractions and sensationalism, as do lower quality newspapers - although tabloids tend to avoid the problem by not containing any news at all.

Re:Good and Bad (4, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255825)

"publish first verify later" attitude.
As a journalist myself I can tell you something about that attitude.

There are different news sources for different purposes, and each one requires a different degree of verifiability.

I knew a guy who edited an electronic newsletter for metals traders. In their business, they have a saying, "buy on rumor, sell on fact." They wanted rumors, and they wanted them immediately. They were paying $1,000 a year subscription for that privilege.

If you happen to be living in New Orleans, and the weather station finds out about a hurricane headed your way, you might want to know about that immediately rather than wait for the White House to verify the facts.

OTOH when I read about the potential dangers of a new drug that millions of people may be taking http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0780 99 [nejm.org] , I want the facts to be checked pretty carefully. They've got plenty of time, and that's their responsibility. I read the Wall Street Journal, and they did a pretty good job of verifying the story. And they did it by their midnight deadline. I think the major news media did a pretty good job on the Avandia story -- considering that we won't be able to really verify the facts for another 5 years when the big randomized controlled trials are finished.

I also expect that when the President of the U.S. gives us reasons why we should go to war, the newspapers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journa list)#New_York_Times_career:_2002-2005 [wikipedia.org] won't just parrot his lies, but will do independent, skeptical investigations http://www.democracynow.org/ [democracynow.org] to get all sides of the story and give us enough information so that we can weigh the facts ourselves and figure out the truth. http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html [bartleby.com] I could reduce journalism to one rule: Always get the other side. If they get both sides, it's good journalism. If not, it's propaganda.

There's plenty of news sources that do that. http://pulitzer.org/ [pulitzer.org] http://pulitzer.org/cgi-bin/year.pl?1979,16 [pulitzer.org] If you don't like the news you see on Google, be a little bit more selective in what you read.

I think readers have a certain responsibility to learn how to think. As the New Scientist suggested last week, people who know how to think will turn the argument around and look at it from the other guy's perspective. It's not fair to complain about the news media just because the stories report facts you don't agree with. If you did agree with them all the time, they wouldn't be doing their job -- which is to give your preconceived notions a kick in the ass sometimes.

Re:Good and Bad (1)

siriuskase (679431) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255915)

I don't understand the fascination newspeople have with scoops and breaking news. IMHE, scoops/breaking news articles are usually full of errors if they contain more than one line. If they want to do more than provide a headline, they need to do a decent job getting their facts straight, which they won't do if they value speed. I've heard so much blabber from newspeople about the news cycle that just doens't make since.

Besides, when I use Google News, I don't blindly click on the top headline. I look to the right to see which news service provided it. Then I will click on it if I know that provider to do a reasonable job of getting the facts straight. I don't care who "broke" the story as in getting published first, not if they also "broke" the facts. I'd rather the stories were rated on accuracy and informativeness. My favorite news stories are those with lots of facts and not much analysis. That's my other beef, reporters who would rather write long columns with their not so humble opinion with very little real information to support it.

Good (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 7 years ago | (#19267061)

I'd love to be able to see where a story came from. Especially for online news sources, we often have the situation where 20 different sites all post the same story, but the details differ. The stories are translated back and forth between languages, each site has to use their own words (otherwise it is a copyright violation), and many sites have their own angles.

Being able to track down the relationship between the reports would greatly help separating the facts from the fiction in the story.

Google news... (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253873)

I'm sure it will be decent for RSS and other sorts, but they'll never show anything such as this Google and Memorial day [newsbusters.org]

Re:Google news... (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254331)

Tell me again why anyone should care? I'm serious, what does it matter if Google are a little bit not patriotic? Personally (and I'm not in the US), I had to do a search (ironically using Google...) to actually even find out what it is!

I'd be more worried if they were glorifying past military adventures, rather then if they are simply ignoring them.

You know what they say in Australia, "best we forget". For it is better to forget then to glorify war, to raise to hero status those who have died in service of an outdated concept (the country) in often imperialistic wars.

I'm also not interested in a debate just here, if you want one, goto the URL under my name and register. I'll probably notice and respond.

(apathy maybe, now breaking the fourth wall, hey mods! I've got great karma, but I didn't put my karma bonus on this because I only wanted to talk to the person I'm responding to. That means you don't have to mod me down (or up).)

Re:Google news... (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254529)

I'm not going to get into the whole theory of things. They don't celebrate Memorial Day or Veterans Day, which are American holidays. America being the country they're from.

They DO, in fact, celebrate military heros and liberations of other countries.

Now, I'm not a fan of war by any means, but a reason to not support your own country's fallen, (yet support others) is a shot in the gut.

Honestly, Americans as well as others who died trying to fight Hitler and such.

It's not all about being patriotic, but making a political statement for your own cause is somewhat crappy when you're talking about overlooking millions of men who died in combat, when they were in it just to feed their families.

If you want to fight the man, there are better ways of doing so.. by not supporting any government days of some sort, but don't think you're a better person for undermining two of the only days these guys have, in their own country, which they defended for your own cause.

Re:Google news... (0, Troll)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254759)

Don't be fooled, the American military hasn't fought ANY wars for "our" cause in over a century. Probably not since the Revolution. That being said, Google really should put something up on their site. At least that way I'll remember why I'm not at work that day.

Re:Google news... (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19256155)

Yeah, I know what you mean.

When I first read it, I thought it was comical because they actually support Independence day, but not those who faught for the cause.

Granted, I doubt that the Veterans and Memorial day were made to remember THOSE soldiers... but still. I doubt it would hurt much to honor them.

I guess this is all off topic, and I don't have anything against Google aside from that. They seem as if they're a fairly open-minded company aside from that.

Re:Google news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19256281)

I have something else against Google. They don't celebrate MY birthday with some logo fun. They already archive EVERYTHING I do online, so I'm sure they know when it is. Would it really be so much trouble to have a little "Happy birthday to you FROM GOOGLE" Google logo show up on my special day?!?!?!

Google's side on Ignored Holidays: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19257475)

On Memorial Day:

Thank you for your note. We understand your interest in seeing a Memorial Day Google logo. If we were to commemorate this holiday, we'd want to express reverence; however, as Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted in nature, this would be a particularly challenging design. We wouldn't want to create a graphic that could be interpreted as disrespectful in any way.

We have a long list of holidays that we'd like to celebrate in the future. We have to balance this rotating calendar with the need to maintain the consistency of the Google homepage. We really appreciate your feedback regarding the Google logo, and please be assured that we're actively pursuing ways in which we can acknowledge Memorial Day and other such occasions in the future.

Regards,
The Google Team


On Christmas:

Thank you for your note. We understand your concern about our holiday logo, and we appreciate your feedback about celebrating Christmas.

At Google, we do not celebrate religious holidays in our homepage doodles. This is mostly a matter of practicality and fairness, as celebrating one such occasion would lead to the obvious and irrefutable expectation that we should celebrate all such holidays. Thus, instead of depicting Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Ramadan, we observed the season with polar bears making snow cone presents for their friends. We hope to communicate a feeling of joyousness to all of our users, regardless of their specific beliefs. We're committed to celebrating the diversity of our users worldwide and will keep your feedback in mind for the future.

Regards,
The Google Team

Martial Law Declared: +1, Patriotic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253933)


in the United Gulags Of America

By executive order,
Presidnet George W. Bush [whitehouse.org] .

Quality over quantity (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253951)

I don't care who broke a story first. What I want is the story that covers the event best.

Re:Quality over quantity (1)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254097)

That's not how the news media works. The big glaring headlines are reserved for "fast breaking" news that is high on volume and low on content. The actually informative investigative pieces are below the fold in the Sunday paper where nobody reads them.

What's so bad about traffic? (3, Funny)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254001)

the aggregation and search site that media companies love to hate because it has become a major source of Web traffic and frustrations for many of them
If you'd rather not have the traffic, just say who you are, and I'll gladly avoid your site!

Re:What's so bad about traffic? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254161)

"What's so bad about traffic?"

Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:What's so bad about traffic? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254461)

Traffic was a horrible movie....

Re:What's so bad about traffic? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254853)

And please provide a link!

Google/News is the enemy of manipulation (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254201)

I pull plenty RSS feeds from Google/News to analyze how Media works.

You can draw charts which news channel or paper is owned by whom and make predictions how channel or paper XY will add or remove information from an article to push lobbying in one or the other direction (or sometimes both if the Ad revenue demands it).

It helped me to understand how we get manipulated. It made me ignorant for my own good.

You might believe that you find the truth between left and right? Even those days are over.

Thanks, but.. (3, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254285)

Contrary to what moronic sites like Digg (which last I checked only allows one submission per URL, with no editorial review) would have you believe is the "right way" to do things, I really don't care in the slightest who reported on an event "first". I care who reported on it in a manner which tells me best what I want to know about it.

Re:Thanks, but.. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19262303)

I think a number of you are misinterpreting what the GP was trying to say with the "who reported it first" thing... These days, often one news agency will report something, and everyone else will just grab their article, pull what meager facts there are from it, add some editorialization, and re-publish. With Google News, you can tell who was the original author of any specific version of the news, which does often help in understanding what's actually going on.

Example: Microsoft publishes an article "Microsoft is the best company in the world" with the body explaining how executives at Microsoft get better benefits packages than any other company. They submit it to Business Wire or some such.

Next thing you know, other news agencies are publishing similar stories, but saying that sources claim that in a recent study, MS employees enjoy their jobs more than other similar employees at competing software firms. Quotes are taken from the first article about executives saying how they like their benefits packages.

Due to the way Google News works, it becomes obvious that the second batch of articles just borrowed from the first article. It doesn't matter whether Forbes goes and publishes an interview on the same topic the next day; we're following the cut&paste news reporting here, not the actual "use your own sources" reporting.

The obvious... (0)

wbren (682133) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254287)

I would start with the obvious things, like animated GIFs, marquee tags for headlines, and background sounds. Ohhh and those Javascript routines that make your mouse cursor look all weird! I mean yeah, YouTube news videos would be nice I guess, but that shouldn't be at the top of the list.

Personalised social news (1)

cyberianpan (975767) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254321)

I know not all on this site like Digg & Reddit but I find these sites have merit in flagging news. Better still would be if a user community was to interact with Google News (which ought extend to more journal articles etc). Then they could "tag" stories & vote as with say Reddit. More interestingly GoogleNews could start learning what I liked (e.g. as with all slashdottians stories about new & improved blowup wives) but better again it could start learning who I liked: e.g. perhaps 68% of times I follow through on stories that "Cowboy Neal" votes up. So to summarize base "My stories" on:

1) My hero's tastes (and I want it to figure out my heros)

2) My preferred sources (eg /.)

3) My preffered tags

4) General stream

Wont kudos override accuracy? (3, Insightful)

TechnoBunny (991156) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254377)

If people are rushing to be 'FRIST!' then wont verification of facts come a distant second to making a scoop?

Its bad enough with 24h news networks trying to out do each other - this can only make it worse. Why not rank in terms of the reliability of the source. (How one measures that is, of course, a bit of a problem...)

Call me crazy, but.... (1)

agent (7471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254419)

more news. Film at 11.

Hmm (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254483)

I'm not sure what's next, but I know what's already here -- horizontal scrollbars!

Sigh.

My guess is that most web designers are also Windows users who run all their programs in fullscreen, or otherwise work for folks that believe their sites merit an inordinate amount screen real estate. Given the amount of rubbish on the intarweb, I don't think I'm alone in finding a complaint or two in that regard. On my 1024x768 laptop, for example, I'll allot no more than 75% of the screen to a Firefox window (maybe full screen for The New York Times). If Slashdot can fit nicely, why can't everyone else? Or do people not mind the staring into a lightbulb effect? Or the eyestrain of reading overlong lines of text? Then again, maybe they don't read at all.

Google News was always a favourite of mine. Not entirely representative of what I'd consider newsworthy, but it distinguishes itself in a number of areas, not the least of which is the typical Google style of conciseness (measured in terms of both screen real estate and content) we've all come to expect.

Maybe I'll just say f*ck it and go back to using a text browser. Oddly enough, most of the news stories I read by copying the link address into lynx, etc. to spare myself the grief of encountering bloated and slow loading pages with little content which, surprise, constitute the majority of news sites aggregated.

Lots of room for improvement (3, Interesting)

Darth Cider (320236) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254721)

Google News could use more depth. As it is, "top stories" run for many days and categorized in the broadest possible way, making deeper search into less popular stories very difficult. If not for the search feature and Google Alerts, the site would be indistinguishable from the Associated Press wire. Personalization just doesn't allow enough options. I would like to see more refined categories. For example, instead of the blunt "Nanotechnology" category, subheadings for solar energy news would draw lots of interest, to name just one possibility. Or create sister sites: "Google Geek News," "Google Punditry News," "Google Phun News." Sure, their RSS reader allows anyone to create a personalized aggregator, but again that places an obstacle in the way, all the work involved in generating lists. (Just emulate originalsignal.com!)

Eh, but the news is nothing really. The medium is the message. Google just wants to put ads in front of us. They have better resources than any company to help each of us find the news that will appeal to us and keep us coming back. YouTube is not the answer I was hoping for.

Re:Lots of room for improvement (1)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255769)

Here's a link to Google Geek News [google.com] . Beta obviously.

GeoRSS? (3, Interesting)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254731)

TFA doesn't mentions GeoRSS. Sad since Google already supports GeoRSS [slashdot.org] and it would be more than appropriate for global news diffusion...

how about fixing all the RSS feed bugs they have? (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254821)

try to parse it, I dare you!

Re:how about fixing all the RSS feed bugs they hav (1)

davygrvy (868500) | more than 7 years ago | (#19257669)

Google's main feed is http://news.google.com/?ned=us&topic=h&output=rss [google.com]

The RSS itself is ok, http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F% 2Fnews.google.com%2F%3Fned%3Dus%26topic%3Dh%26outp ut%3Drss [feedvalidator.org] but that's not the least of it..

Just take any of the <description> entries and validate them as valid HTML 4.01 and you'll see that google make the same mistakes each and every time with things like a closing </b> crosses an opening <font> and no closing </tr> and </td> before the closing </table>, etc. What perverse and simple errors they have in their main template. How can they overlook this?

What Google Really Needs to do (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255007)

They need to stop fscking with everything. It was fine, now it's starting to look cluttered.

Google has made a right pig's ear out of Deja News where they have developed their own interface, which is javascript heavy and becoming a nuisance to use. I long for the days when i could read USENET news with Mozilla, threaded, unthreaded by date, etc.

Oh no! (1)

dosle (794546) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255955)

This rings in a whole new level of FIRST POAST!!1

mo3 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19256013)

long time FreeBSD to deliver what, the point 8ore failure, its cogrpse

More suggestions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19256531)

Roll up all the repetitive re-gurgitating of the very same stories somehow. Like when you see that there are 763 stories about some topic and it turns out about 650 of them are just local newspapers re-posting the same AP article word for word. So you have to page through them 20 or so per screen to get to the different ones. Just post one and then link the user to a page that lists all the sites that have it and when it was posted on each site.

Try to link the Babel fish feature to the news, so we can compare how the English and Arabic sources are reporting the same events. I suspect news nowadays splits along language fault lines even more than political affiliation, national affiliation, etc. because the user base in each language does not (in general) even read any of the others. The more spillover, the more sameness the sources will eventually take on.

Lots of possibilities for Google News (1)

proxima (165692) | more than 7 years ago | (#19256605)

Coming up with ways to improve a service like Google News is not the hard part. The hard part is implementation and, unfortunately, legal wrangling with the sites that Google aggregates. The latter probably prevents a number of easier-to-implement features because Google probably doesn't want to ruffle more feathers than they are already.

That said, let me list a few things that I'd love to see with Google News.

- Greater customization of the main page. One thing I thought of I see that GN already has - custom sections based on keywords of your choosing. Still, I can think of wanting sections which contain more broad categories or exclude certain stories. If, for example, I want to exclude any story with the words "Paris Hilton", I could have a filter set up to do that.

- Preferential treatment from news sources I like. In any given search or category, these sources would be given a bump over their previous rankings.

- Tying in with that, a general moderation system. Given enough people using the service, news stories could be moderated in a /. type system to help bring the good ones out (of course, you may want to ignore the rankings if you disagree with those reading GN)

- Barring that, Google has tons of click-through data on what people read. I'm not sure how much of that (if any) is taken into account when deciding which stories to include.

- One problem with GN moving away from beta is they haven't added ads to it yet. I've heard this is because they're afraid of backlash from the companies they're linking. I'd personally be willing to pay a small ($5/mo?) subscription fee for Google News if it can pull off the following:

    - Use Google's massive bandwidth to host newswire (AP, Reuters) and major newspaper (NYTimes, LATimes, etc) articles themselves, without ads and with a clean, simple interface
    - Pay a fraction of my subscription fee to those sites whose articles I read. Newspapers are struggling to find ways to generate revenue online now, as only the WSJ started with a subscription from day 1. If Google can build up enough "value-added" to start a commercial service, they might be able to break the tradition of heavy-ads news sites.
    - Continue to link to sites not part of the Google network
    - Offer many new customization options for paid users

Please No! (1)

tji (74570) | more than 7 years ago | (#19257115)

If there is one thing Internet services do not need, it's tighter video integration.

A text article gives me the option to quickly scan it and get the bits I need, or skip it entirely because I'm not interested. This all takes a second or so. If it is interesting to me, I can read the full text for more thorough treatment of the issue.

All this video junk takes us back to TeeVee mode. Bullshit commercials, intro from reporter, setup, then the actual item. This takes much longer, even when disregarding any network delays, load times, application problems, bandwidth limits, etc.

I have largely stopped reading cnn.com, because half of their linked articles on the front page are video.

FRIST STOP.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19257809)

result of a q\uaarel

_first! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19258231)

a relatively users. BSD/OS it. Do not share (I always bring my USERS/ WITH LARGE you can. No, which allows another special FreeBSD core team correct network

I don't know whats next... (1)

keepper (24317) | more than 7 years ago | (#19261189)

But I'm sure http://daylife.com/ [daylife.com] will get there first ;)

DISCLAIMER: I do work for them, so take my opinions with a grain of salt
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...