lobsterkatie


About me


  • lobsterkatie has started 1 topic. 3 people are following it.
  • lobsterkatie has made 0 replies.

Recent activity

Subscribe to this feed

  • Tim started following the idea "Single-page layout option?" in The New York Times.

  • idea

    jonathangrubb replied on March 04, 2008 23:06 to the idea "Single-page layout option?" in The New York Times:

    jonathangrubb
    Without any specific knowledge of NYT's strategy I'd bet a dollar that they break up the stories to deliver more ad impressions. It's silly and backward-looking, but they make their $$ on ad impressions and so far there isn't a better way to track how many times someone saw the ad.

    At least they provide a single page view, unlike many publications. I often click on the "Print" link to read articles without all the promotions and cross-sells.
    Do you think this is one of the best points? Mark it as a good point

  • jonathangrubb started following the idea "Single-page layout option?" in The New York Times.

  • jonathangrubb started following the idea "Single-page layout option?" in The New York Times.

  • idea

    lobsterkatie shared an idea in The New York Times on February 25, 2008 22:06:

    lobsterkatie
    Single-page layout option?
    Hey, NYT!

    I read you obsessively (honestly, it's like a disease), and for the most part love the site. However, one thing I'd love to change is the single-page/multiple page layout.

    Once I'm signed in as me, I'd like to be able to a default as to whether I get stories broken up into multiple pages or all on a single page. I can only assume the convention of breaking it up started back when everyone had dialup and loading a long story took too long, but by now it seems a moot point. I also can't imagine breaking it up is so you can sell more ads, since showing the story on a single page gives you more space down the sides to put ads. (What IS the reason you still break it up?)

    Anyway, I've solved the problem for myself by using Firefox with Greasemonkey and a script which switches automatically to single-page. However, this seems a convoluted work-around for something which should be easy to fix.

    Thanks!
    Katie