C-Ville Weekly on cvillenews.com

In this week’s C-Ville Weekly, there’s a column entitled “Blind man’s bluff: the interactive news blues” about cvillenews.com and George Loper’s site. (Sorry, the story’s not available on-line.) Author Kathryn Goodson says cvillenewsers “rarely [offer] interesting insight or an enlightening point of view,” and complains that there are only three regular contributors to the site: myself, Lafe and Cecil. She goes on to say that Loper’s site “works more efficiently than cvillenews.com…because of the simple fact that Loper edits it before posting it online,” and concludes with a question: “But then the question becomes, at point will our self-imposed editor step in?”

5 Responses to “C-Ville Weekly on cvillenews.com”


  • Lafe says:

    Hmmm, if she thinks I’m one of the most regular contributors, then she hasn’t been around that much. She must have drawn her conclusions from visiting once, and checking out the conversation going on, then leaving.

    Then again, maybe she means that we’re the ones that rarely offer an interesting insight, or an enlightening point of view? I’ll have to read the article.

    Though I must admit that I find it strangely delightful that my nom De Plume showed up in a local publication.

    In any event, I think she missed the major difference between this site and Loper’s, and I think this mistake is due to the name of this site. She apparently views cvillenews.com as a strictly news website, and I don’t believe that it is. This is a community news/discussion site (IMO). That difference, and that extra bit of interactivity is why I visit this site daily, and Loper’s site every month or so.

    I wonder if she realizes that there’s more to the web that reading web pages and sending email.

  • Lafe says:

    PS – Hey Waldo, what’s going on with your nameservers? I’m accessing this site by IP now, since I somehow found it in my server’s referrer logs. I haven’t been able to find this place for days. I’ve missed it. :)

  • Anonymous says:

    PS – Hey Waldo, what’s going on with your nameservers? I’m accessing this site by IP now, since I somehow found it in my server’s referrer logs. I haven’t been able to find this place for days. I’ve missed it. :)

    It’s Network Solutions — they’re not updating the root name servers to reflect that the server has moved from 216.12.15.168 to 216.12.86.3. So I temporarily set up the site as /cvillenews/, and I’m trying to let people know that it’s got this temporary address. It’s a less-than-cool solution, but I do what I can. :)

    FYI, I’ve requested a registrar transfer to DirectNIC, as I’ve lost all hope that Network Solutions will pay attention to my e-mail and faxes after five days of trying. I just hope that goes through soon so that I can make the changes.

  • Lafe says:

    All right, I’ve read the article, and I still hold the basic view that I had from merely hearing about it.

    She’s comparing apples to oranges with loper.org and cvillenews.com. They’re simply not the same type of site. The news articles are more polished and concise on loper.org?! Gasp! Shock! It’s an editorial (and political) site. Cvillenews.com isn’t.

    And I’m an “obsessive poster”. :D Do I get a gold star?

    I would’ve been more impressed with the article if she’d compared loper.org to other political websites for our community (there’s a whole list of ’em on loper.org at the very least, for goodness sakes). Or if she’d compared cvillenews.com to other community news/discussion sites, but, as far as I know, there aren’t any others for Charlottesville (that have any activity). Unless you could argue that the virtual chalkboard is one?

  • fdr says:

    I’d like to know how Ms. Goodson defines “regular”. Perhaps all the posts by “Anonymous” are made by “regular” contributors; she would have no way to demonstrate the number of different people posting. Plus, even those with login IDs have the option of posting anonymously, perhaps making them more “regular” than they get credit for.

    The very fact that there’s a space online for people to discuss local issues has intrinsic value. It’s up to the users of the community to decide for themselves whether the discussions are actually “insightful”, not members of the local media (unless perchance they are active, “regular” participants).

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog