-
Website
http://blogs.nashuatelegraph.com/TheEditor'sBlog -
Original page
http://blogs.nashuatelegraph.com/theeditorsblog/2006/05/15/mother-of-a-storm-the-web-version/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm very disappointed in The Telegraph's coverage of the effects of the storm on it's website. Here we have a case of information the public *needs* to know. But it can't get to it because it's behind the need to login to the site. Instead of using the Telegraph's site, I went to the Union Leader's site which gave me no hassles about getting the information on road and school closings.
I understand that running a website costs money, and that you have to show a profit. But this is a safety issue. The Telegraph should have made this information available with no questions and/or logins asked. I've been a Telegraph subscriber since I moved to Nashua 20 years ago, and right now I'm very dissatisfied with my local paper.
Barry:
I'm really sorry to hear we weren't able to live up to your expectations today. As you know, newspaper Web sites across the country have wrestled with the registration issue for some time and will continue to do so into the future. In the meantime, however, given our extremely strong Web traffic today and the fact that more than five times as many people registered than on a typical day, I'm encouraged by the response to our breaking news coverage today. The fact that you weren't one of them is disappointing, but I respect your decision.
Today the Telegraph served its subscribers and readers in a timely, superb, and innovative manner. I read my delivered print paper this morning, and thought the storm coverage was informative. Then, I followed the important updates on line all through the day. The updates were very helpful and not just empty tech fluff. You're integrating print and web news very well, Nick, and you've proved this by your exemplary coverage of today's breaking news. Congratulations to all, and keep it up.
Kirby F. Smith
Compliments on your print coverage of the storm. After a slow start the first day, you came through with some nice local photos and facts.
But can I share a bit of constructive criticism? While it was interesting to see the "Now and Then" photo package on the Region front today (Wednesday, May 17), I think you ought to have waited a bit before devoting half a page to 70-year-old photos showing how much worse it once was.
I'd have preferred to have seen the space devoted to local photos with information of what went on yesterday.
Why? I guess some of us are still dealing with storm damage and flooded basements, and aren't so receptive right now to accounts of how good we have it by comparison.
It's cool you had a historical photo archive so readily available (you'd run some of the previously), but you went with it just a tad too early, don't you think? It would have made a nice Sunday feature, perhaps.