Uncategorized

NY Times quotes my blog, but no linkback

I want to say a big THANK YOU to the New York Times and then take my former employer to task for what may be a failure to understand the Internet. (Or just an editing oversight)

The Thank You:

First the thank you: You paid attention to a short post on my simple WordPress blog about how my International Herald Tribune articles were deleted in the merger of the nytimes.com and iht.com sites.

In simple terms, it was as if The New York Times had dragged the IHT archives into the street and burned them.

There were no links or archives to the hundreds of articles I wrote for the IHT in a career spanning five continents and dozens of countries writing about a few disease outbreaks, several civil wars and a great week at the Cannes film festival.

More broadly than my own concerns, however, the NY Times effectively “nuked itself” by needlessly shutting down a valuable web property. With a simple redirect of those links, the NY Times could create a powerhouse site that adds the IHT’s value rather than just shutting it down.

My posting on the issue spread via high influence Twitterers, was quoted by a significant number of high profile blogs and even written about by TIME, Reuters and other mainstream media outlets.

In the fallout, The New York Times has contacted me in the form of the spokesperson, Diane McNulty, the Chief Search Strategist, Marshall Simmonds and the Director of Search Strategy, Matthew Brown.

Now Richard Perez-Pena, one of the great Times reporters with whom I shared a corner of the newsroom, wrote a brief item  detailing incident.

Richard quotes Marc S. Frons, chief technology officer of New York Times Digital, as saying that the problem is 80 percent solved.

I can only presume that many of my stories are among the 20 percent still waiting to be restored. A search of Myanmar and my name only turns up the stories on that country that I wrote for The New York Times, a fraction of the number I have written about that country for the IHT.

In any case, I blogged and you listened. Thank you.

Not meaning to be ungrateful, but:

My thank you is, however, tempered by a shortcoming in Richard’s article that may show a misunderstanding of the blogosphere (or perhaps just an edit desk oversight.)

While the story quotes my blog, it does not - as every blogger would - link to the original posting.

Does this matter?

I think so. The new media landscape is defined by the link economy. By giving more links, bloggers and publications participate in the global online conversation while also improving their standing online.

A further reason: Linkbacks quickly bring readers straight to the source material for a story.

(If The New York Times has a policy against links, they are better than what BusinessWeek used to do: The magazine actually blocked Don MacAskill of Smugmug from deeplinking to an article written about him.)

I therefore conclude this thank you note with one final request: Once you finish with the remaining 20 percent of archiving and links to my stories, please consider adding a link to my blog from the article.

Sincerely,

Thomas Crampton

Popularity: 11% [?]

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Discussion

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.thomascrampton.com/uncategorized/ny-times-quotes-my-blog-but-no-linkback/trackback/

Comments for “NY Times quotes my blog, but no linkback”

  • Unless their intention was to destroy all that IHT had ever built, a major company making a mistake of this magnitude is unbelievable. I am appalled every time I see a small business let someone who doesn't know what they're doing "upgrade" their site and just reading your article was painful. It is just so unnecessary to lose all the incoming links you've ever built.

    I hope you don't mind my sharing a post I wrote that was inspired the last time I saw someone make this serious mistake: What NOT to Do With Your Existing Site When You Redesign or Upgrade.

    Even if they eventually restore the information and even if they used the original URLs (which it doesn't sound like they're doing) unless you redirect properly BEFORE you move pages, much of the damage can be permanent.
  • Thanks for sharing the information. I am very amazed at the confidence level of you guys, so i have to

    refer your blog to my friends because it’s really a help full blog.
    Good Day

    Cheers,
    sweethomeimprove.com
    sain-web.com
  • danbloom
    Thomas, what an amazing story, and it's still got legs. What the Times did was plain unbelievable, but they did it. Ouch. One thing that you and others might want to think about this, and I know it might sound crazy, but: if in some future time, when climate chaos forces millions to migrate north and south as climate refugees (ask Andy Revkin at the Times about this, he knows, if anyone does, and James Lovelock, too) and if climate chaos and global warming, say year 2323 or so, completely stops the electrical grid worldwide, and all electric power goes OUT, and thus all computers go KAPUT, what will happen to the archives of human civilization that were so carelessly stored on computer files for the last 300 years or so, from 1995 to year 2323? Ever think about that? We think that computers are forever, we want to think so, but we are entering uncharted territory in terms of climate change and global warming and climate chaos and klimatkatrostrof as the Germans say, and what will happen then? Just a thought...
  • Elke S.
    Ah, so the New York Times restored the stories. They migrated a bunch of text from one database to another. What they chose NOT to do was to migrate the LINKS, VIDEOS, PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, CHARTS, MAPS, ETC. that were part and parcel of the IHT.com package. That means many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of iht.com staffers' work, going back more than 15 years is gone. Thomas, they fixed an embarrassing mistake (your blogging might have helped to speed it up) at the least possible cost, but threw away half of the value in the process. Once again, they've shown that they have no idea what is the point with this "series of tubes."
  • We got an internal company note that somehow tried to reassure us that the archives were coming back, while also taking a backhanded hit at Google, with the unstated message that it is somehow THEIR fault that we erased our own archives before making a new one.

    Anyways, allegedly, "many thousands" of old IHT articles are now linked up to their new NYT URLs. I tried some of the old links on my personal blog, Joyceyland, and they seem to be working. So maybe we haven't lost quite as much "connectivity" as I had feared.

    In a very quick and me-centered survey, I found that, of 11 IHT-only stories that had been lost before, 6 are now back online.

    Hey! We're batting over 500!
  • Tom -- 80% fixed, eh? That 20 percent must be geared at you and me. Because none of my IHT-only stories are on the NYT site. (Or, really, anywhere online anymore, unless they happened to have been reprinted elsewhere).
    I was thinking of going into the IHT internal computer system and cutting and pasting them onto my blog, so at least SOME record exists online. xx, Joyce
  • Dan
    I know exactly what you are saying. A couple of times, MSM has quoted Steve or me and then mentioned our blog without a link. I have then emailed the reporter asking them to get the link on the online version. At least twice, they have come back and said that goes against the "guidelines." I ask, what guidelines are those, the ones that say you are supposed to make things difficult on YOUR OWN readers?
  • Marshall Simmonds is quite a celebrated SEO and based on being charged with the challenges of a site the size of NYT, is probably a Jedi warrior of Yoda level in mastering the SEO Force. So I assume they didn't toast a PR9 site with impunity. My guess is that they did it to reduce duplicate content which Google is increasingly sensitive to. By having only 1 version of each article, NYT can reduce duplicate content and rank better for the remaining articles. Why didn't they do more targeted permanent 301 redirects from specific IHT article permalinks to the new NYT permalinks? One can only guess how complex that is to do for a site the size and scope of NYT/IHT. Maybe the global redirect to the homepage is a temporary redirect. Or they could have used the new "canonical" tag and maintained duplicate pages in IHT and just indicated to The Google that the NYT copy should be considered the canonical version of the article and all the IHT article version backlinks be credited to the canonical version of the article. But of course that probably is similar in complexity to just doing a targeted 301 redirect on such a large site.

    Agree with you on the "link econony"

    While you're asking for a NYT link to your blog, be sure to check to make sure that it is not a "rel=nofollow" because that will do you no good with Google (most likely, although if I were Google I would secretly weight nofollow based on the PR of the site). Maybe you could even ultra-upgrade your link by having them link to you with anchor text ="China digital strategy" since that is what you should be known for! (I'm sure you already rank just fine for your own name).

    Good luck. Marshall Simmonds, would love to have you write something about the IHT NYT merger and why it makes sense. It would be an interesting post for all of us SEO enthusiasts to read. May the Google Force be with You!
  • It is a bit of a strategy official Chinese newspapers follow. They only mention a problem, when it has already been solved.

    Fons Tuinstra
  • Thomas.

    At least you got the mention!

    I have had stuff lifted straight off my page by other bloggers and professional media without a h/t or a credit. Worse than that in my opinion are the people who do that and then get their stories punted by everyone else, again without credit to you.

    Anyway, great story, and was really good to see how many of your friends came out to put this in front of the right people.

    R
blog comments powered by Disqus