<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good AFR.com news - but will they finally get it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lancewiggs.com/2007/09/25/good-afrcom-news-but-will-they-finally-get-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lancewiggs.com/2007/09/25/good-afrcom-news-but-will-they-finally-get-it/</link>
	<description>NZ Internet, Media and Business</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 01:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: scott lewis</title>
		<link>http://lancewiggs.com/2007/09/25/good-afrcom-news-but-will-they-finally-get-it/#comment-6190</link>
		<dc:creator>scott lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lancewiggs.com/2007/09/25/good-afrcom-news-but-will-they-finally-get-it/#comment-6190</guid>
		<description>Gill and Fairfax really don't understand online publishing at all. I worked in a business information company for five years, and developed some good products that did things like supply summaries of AFR/Age/SMH articles via email newsletters, complete with links to the full-text on the Fairfax websites. I don't think they ever understood we were doing them a favour. Reportedly, most of our contacts with Fairfax were quite hostile.

The latest AFR website was designed specifically to prevent that kind of linking (as mentioned in a Crikey story) using an Adobe technology called Flex. One side effect of this is that it doesn't show up on Google searches. At all. Adobe actually provides a special application to allow linking by Google into Flex sites -- so one has to conclude this is deliberate by the AFR. It has chosen not to be accessible by search engines in an internet era when these dominate.

I could cite other examples, but it really isn't worth it. 

The primary problem that Fairfax and other newspaper publishers face is that they don't understand the money that can be made from distribution. In print publishing the big deal is actually production, getting ink on paper. On the web, production is much easier. Distribution, however, getting the right content to the right people, is much more complex.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gill and Fairfax really don&#8217;t understand online publishing at all. I worked in a business information company for five years, and developed some good products that did things like supply summaries of AFR/Age/SMH articles via email newsletters, complete with links to the full-text on the Fairfax websites. I don&#8217;t think they ever understood we were doing them a favour. Reportedly, most of our contacts with Fairfax were quite hostile.</p>
<p>The latest AFR website was designed specifically to prevent that kind of linking (as mentioned in a Crikey story) using an Adobe technology called Flex. One side effect of this is that it doesn&#8217;t show up on Google searches. At all. Adobe actually provides a special application to allow linking by Google into Flex sites &#8212; so one has to conclude this is deliberate by the AFR. It has chosen not to be accessible by search engines in an internet era when these dominate.</p>
<p>I could cite other examples, but it really isn&#8217;t worth it. </p>
<p>The primary problem that Fairfax and other newspaper publishers face is that they don&#8217;t understand the money that can be made from distribution. In print publishing the big deal is actually production, getting ink on paper. On the web, production is much easier. Distribution, however, getting the right content to the right people, is much more complex.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
