Sporting News/AOL Fanhouse

Apropos of nothing, and this is certainly just the journalist in me, but I was always scared off by something that was called "Fanhouse."

 

Wasn't there a point when AOL had actual fans writing for site? I stopped reading because it became more like a chat room.

Perhaps they should have changed name to change perception.

 

TSN should look at its copy a lot better than this or this deal could end up in the toilet.

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2011-01-18/david-ross-reaches-1-year-deal-with-giants

(Click on the link and you'll see why it's a big deal. As Craig Ferguson's sidekick might say, Oopsy.)

 

One typo in a headline cannot be called a "perception." I am all for mistake-free copy, but for the most part, it's no big deal for my next door neighbor who is a sports fanatic. He's all over Bleacher Report every day and that place is riddled with errors.

If turning out pristine copy was the No. 1 key to success The New York Times would be wildly successful instead of struggling. Like I said, I'm all for clean copy, but the average Joe in this new Twitter/texting/Facebooking world may have a different view.

 

In my book as a reader that is a huge mistake. You've broken an implied bond of trust that what I am reading has been properly vetted for error.

It's like a house painter deciding not to paint an area that might not be seen. It's cutting a corner that is not acceptable.

 

Why his first name in the head in the first place? I'm seeing that all over these days. Unless a team has three guys with the same name, when did using first and last names become headline writing style anyway?

 

SF, you're an Internet guy, right? Unless this has changed recently and you know something I don't, I believe first names are in headlines because of SEO -- people type "Cody Ross" into the Google, not just "Ross."

 

Not only am I an Internet guy, I'm an SEO committee Internet guy, so I'm a bit humbled for stating this quite like this starkly and, some would say, cluelessly. And I got PMed on my gaffe as well.

Let me attempt to reload and give myself this out: Our philosophy has always been do the headline that makes sense editorially first and then worry about SEO. So at our place right now, that headline likely would have simply said "Ross."

Having said that, let me say this: Our new content management system is going to have spots for two headlines, one SEO friendly for the title bar, the other that goes on the story itself. So we're going to be doing it both ways soon.

 

Newspapers would be wise to adopt this. Which of course means they won't. If I think of the five best headlines I ever wrote for a newspaper, not a one would work on the Internet.

 

Exactly the same here. Creative, entertaining headlines and SEO headlines aren't completely mutually exclusive, but it's close.

 

Struggling for the right words when I typed that. It's fixed in my post.

 

I've never understood why article headlines & title bars are sometimes different.

Is this the reason? I guess it makes sense, but it had never occurred to me.