Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New structure proposal: separating "news" and "rumors"

T

Tinhead

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 25, 2004
43
0
Instead of the current, somewhat confusing "page1" and "page2" division, wouldn't it make more sense to divide articles into "news" and "rumors"? The reliability of the rumors could be indicated within the article itself (they are mostly affected by the reliability of the source, after all).

Maybe it's just me, but many of the rumors seem to be news items rather than actual rumors. I realize that without these, the amount of articles would probably fall considerably, so why not simply group them into their own section? If a rumors turns into fact, or news, it could be moved to the news section, or tagged as reliable/factual.

Furthermore, I also realize that reporting Mac news is not something this site should focus on per se. Instead, I'm proposing a more logical structuring of content, since there is a clear division between news and rumors.

"Page2" seems not only inconsistent and confusing, but also rather unnecessary.

Thoughts?
 
Page 1 is news and rumors you care about.
Page 2 is uncertain rumors and minor news items. (although uncertain rumors is kind of a superfluous)

I like how it is now.

Sometimes Page 1 rumors get confirmed within a few hours and they become news items. It's simply made as an update, which is all fine and good and requires less moving between pages, which can get confusing.
 
I think Tinhead's right...

The current content division is not only subtle, it's completely arbitrary. The visual indicators (Newspaper picture, question mark picture, etc) are very subtle, and I know that I don't notice them very often. Additionally, I don't think it should be the choice of the content posters of this site to decide "the news and rumors you care about," (Page 1) and "uncertain rumors and minor news items." (Page 2)

Obviously, the current system "works," but there's no reason for it to stay subtle and arbitrary for the sake of nostalgia. The fact is, t's a poor distinction of content. I'd be a big proponent in simply separating articles on their source. (News or rumor)
 
Page two only exsists for wild claims that have a slim chance of being true if you ask me, but its fun to disscuss. Page one is actual news and rumors that have a strong likelyhood of being real.

i think it is fine how it is now, but perhaps the articles should all feature a header on Page 1... Rumor: or News: to keep things organized and easier to know what is what better?
 
Tinhead said:
Maybe it's just me, but many of the rumors seem to be news items rather than actual rumors.
Click to expand...

This would seem to imply a significant degree of entropy within your proposal? Aren't rumors news?

Maybe I'm slow on the uptake this morning.
 
max_altitude said:
Each news story is accompanied by a newspaper graphic, while all rumors are accompanied with a question mark graphic.
Click to expand...

I prefer to see them all together. As max_altitude already indicated, the graphics do indicate which is which.
 
Page one is for news and the more verifiable rumors...

Page two is for the longshots.
 
Page 2 stories tend to get many fewer posts.

I'd like to know whether that's because (A) the less-worth-discussing stories are correctly assigned to Page 2, or (B) the fact that they are on Page 2 causes people to discuss them less.

I don't know how to find out without tampering with the guidelines. For example, we could do an experiment to compare two basically similar stories (e.g., two different Security Update) by purposely putting one on Page 1 and Page 2 and seeing how the discussion participation differs.

If the answer is (A), then the Page 2 distinction serves a useful purpose, to keep the lesser quality stories from cluttering the news for those who'd rather skip them. If the answer is (B), I'm less inclined to think that.
 
Doctor Q said:
Page 2 stories tend to get many fewer posts.

I'd like to know whether that's because (A) the less-worth-discussing stories are correctly assigned to Page 2, or (B) the fact that they are on Page 2 causes people to discuss them less.

I don't know how to find out without tampering with the guidelines. For example, we could do an experiment to compare two basically similar stories (e.g., two different Security Update) by purposely putting one on Page 1 and Page 2 and seeing how the discussion participation differs.

If the answer is (A), then the Page 2 distinction serves a useful purpose, to keep the lesser quality stories from cluttering the news for those who'd rather skip them. If the answer is (B), I'm less inclined to think that.
Click to expand...
I'm more inclined to think that it's because of their placement. I don't ever go out of my way to read anything on Page 2. It's only represented on the sidebar on the main page, and I don't spent that much time there.

Given the trend recently in blogs, social bookmarking sites (del.icio.us, digg), photo sharing (flickr), iphoto keywords, spotlight comments and more, with tagging I think it represents a shift in the minds of users. Generally speaking, "we" want to be able to sort our content by type, so we can avoid reading things we're not interested in. (Exactly the reason you mentioned Page 2 exists.) Therefore, it seems only logical (to me) that the content on MR should be separated in a similar fashion, for the benefit of all.
 
redAPPLE said:
aren't rumors in macrumors.com and news in macbytes.com? i believe that was the whole point of macbytes.com
Click to expand...
Well, not according to Doctor Q, et al.

Perhaps we're uncovering a bit of an issue here?
 
redAPPLE said:
aren't rumors in macrumors.com and news in macbytes.com? i believe that was the whole point of macbytes.com
Click to expand...
No, MacBytes is intended for all types of Mac-related items: news, reviews, humor, opinion, etc., while MacRumors is intended to cover selected major Apple-related news and rumors stories that are likely to be worthwhile reading for people who don't read everything Mac related.

We could decide to separate news from rumors, but it seems to me that most people should find the "important" (Page 1) vs. "less important" (Page 2) distinction to be more useful than having a news vs. rumors distinction. After all, if you don't want to read rumors, there are other sites with news-only Mac coverage, and why would you want to read rumors ("New Power Mac may be Announced") but not major news ("New Power Mac has been Announced")?

Sometimes, as noted, rumors turn into facts before our eyes, as happened with the BT Mighty Mouse story, which is left with the original rumor graphic and updates about the later news announcement.

I'd also like to hear suggestions about the best criteria for judging the relative interest levels of updates to Mac OS X and Apple's applications, i.e., Software Update news. It's hard to gauge the importance/interest, especially given that some products (e.g., iTunes) have a much more general audience than others (the Pro applications), and some updates are major new releases while others are security updates or updates for minor features.
 
no one likes my idea it seems huh?

oh well. as i said...overall things work well now.


as for the OS and other updates. i think they should be put on page one still. any major upgrades or point upgrades to OS X is a deal worth discussing and knowing about, any major steps for the apps too.

point upgrades for the apps perhaps doesn't need the full spotlight...
 
WildCowboy said:
It's still there...
Click to expand...
Yes, and we're still waiting to give away that Las Vegas vacation to the first person to correctly identify and explain the last two subtle jokes that nobody seems to have spotted. Both of them involve proper nouns. One is in the left column and one is in the center column.
 
Doctor Q said:
Yes, and we're still waiting to give away that Las Vegas vacation to the first person to correctly identify and explain the last two subtle jokes that nobody seems to have spotted. Both of them involve proper nouns. One is in the left column and one is in the center column.
Click to expand...

I guess there are a lot of things that can be considered subtle jokes that haven't been mentioned, but I'll throw out a few of them:

1. CITIbank @ Home is a nice play on SETI @ Home. (Fluff & Fold @ Home is also a good one.)

2. Erasmus Darwin was Charles Darwin's grandfather, not to mention an eminent doctor and scientist in his own right.

3. K. Rose as Apple's media relation person is a reference to Kevin Rose, who has provided several Apple scoops (aside from starting Digg).

I don't know...you've mentioned several times about outstanding jokes on that page, and it's been driving me crazy. Are they just so obvious that no one bothered mentioning them?
 
Doctor Q said:
One down, one to go!
Click to expand...

Okay...how about this one? For the Grand Prize...

LemurLords is an anagram of Dell Rumors, much like Chaosmint is an anagram of Macintosh.

Vegas, here I come!
 
WildCowboy said:
Okay...how about this one? For the Grand Prize...

LemurLords is an anagram of Dell Rumors, much like Chaosmint is an anagram of Macintosh.

Vegas, here I come!
Click to expand...
Yes!! You are correct! : pumps fist in air :

We've been waiting almost 4 months for somebody to spot that last joke and claim the big prize. arn, send WildCowboy to Las Vegas!


arn?


hello????


Uh oh, it looks like arn took the trip himself! :eek:
 
Doctor Q said:
Uh oh, it looks like arn took the trip himself! :eek:
Click to expand...

Wait...there was a statute of limitations on claiming the grand prize?!

vader-nooooo-741958.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back