By Sarah Rotman
News.com, a subsidiary of CNET, has a format similar to that adopted
by traditional print newspapers' websites-a headline with a one-sentence
abstract, then a link to the full article. All the content is free,
and users are not asked to register or give personal information (which
is good). Users assume a fairly passive role on news.com: there are
no discussion forums, and user-generated content is relegated to the
feeble request to "send us news tips" (which is bad). The
content focuses on corporate news (which dot.coms are folding today,
what major companies are doing), with no real "techy" stuff,
and no subcultural or marginal interest features such as you might
find on Slashdot.com. The site is visually pleasing, with pictures
and white space. The site resembles quite closely the technology section
of NYTimes.com, both in appearance and content. This leaves me wondering
why anyone would use News.com: If you are interested in corporate
news, go with a brand name you trust like the New York Times; if you
are interested in real technology news, go to a specialized site with
depth of content like Slashdot. Without a user community, it doesn't
seem likely that News.com will ever build a loyal following or establish
a brand name.
The only explanation I can think of for why this site is what it
is could be that it is part of the "portal" model of CNET.com,
which claims to be the source for computing and technology. The strength
of CNET lies in its reviews of hardware and software, but in addition
it tacks on IT job postings, financial investment advice, and news
in the form of News.com, all of which don't necessarily have anything
to do with one another, and what's more, don't necessarily have a
common user community. This conglomeration of essentially unrelated
features, which don't necessarily have depth or breadth of content,
is a fundamental weakness in the "portal" model. I think
what CNET is trying to do is to establish an automatic word association
in users minds': Technology=CNET. The problem is that even if people
have heard of CNET, it doesn't take long for them to figure out that
CNET doesn't have the content they are really looking for. "Technology"
is just too broad a category to attempt to portalize; the site would
be better off doing one thing well. And as for News.com, it is what
it is, but why bother? My recommendation for the future direction
of the site is to take it down-it's a waste of cyberspace. Well, barring
that, it should focus on creating an active user community, and take
advantage of the unique potential the internet creates for user involvement.
In addition, it should attempt to both broaden and deepen its content,
and try to cover something in addition to corporate news.