Anyone that regularly reads tech blogs knows that the news aggregator Techmeme is the topic of tons of discussion. I think the attraction definitely has something to do with the fact that Techmeme simply does a pretty good job of summarizing the day’s tech news.

But I think the other thing at play here is that Techmeme is a bit of an exclusive club. The site only tracks certain blogs that have attained some influence in the blogosphere. The dynamic this creates is that if you are a site that Techmeme tracks, you tend to read Techmeme. Sure, you find value in the content, but you also want to see if your posts are making it to the main page. It is sort of addictive.

Today, some folks have written what I’ve been thinking for awhile: Techmeme simply doesn’t drive much traffic to sites that appear on the front page.

Bobbie Johnson from the Guardian’s Technology blog writes:

But in taking a swipe at the diminishing influence of the biggest sites on the leaderboard, Winer also inadvertently points out something else that is crucial: for all that Valley-centric news junkies claim Techmeme as a crucial aggregator, it simply doesn’t refer much traffic. The Guardian features on Techmeme’s leaderboard - at position #57 as I write this. But for us, it represents a tiny proportion of referral traffic.

I’m not going to disclose numbers - the stats dominatrix here at Guardian Dungeons would have me eating gruel for years if I did - but suffice it to say that Techmeme doesn’t rank in the top 100 referrers to the Guardian’s technology pages.

Nick Carr chimes in with some actual numbers:

Even so, I have to admit that the Guardian’s Bobbie Johnson is absolutely right when he says, “for all that Valley-centric news junkies claim Techmeme as a crucial aggregator, it simply doesn’t refer much traffic.” It’s true. I’ve had quite a few headlines sit fairly prominently on Techmeme for many hours, and at most they’ll push a few hundred visitors to the story on my site. That’s squat. On those rare occasions when one of my posts claws its way up the list at Digg, Stumbleupon, or Reddit, many thousands of visits result. Even some recent headlines modestly positioned on the Y Combinator news feed have generated more traffic than a prominent Techmeme headline will.

Our experience at The Bivings Report jibes with that of Carr. We’ve gotten a couple of hundred visitors from prominent links on Techmeme. If we are secondary link on the site, we get well under 100 referrers. This is small time compared to what links on many other sites get in terms of referrers.

I think Techmeme is definitely a small, insular world. However, as Scoble wrote, it is a small, insular world that wields a disproportionate amount of influence. Important people read Techmeme. If you are on Digg, you may get a ton of traffic but the impact is short lived. Those people aren’t going to start reading your blog or participate in your blog’s community. They aren’t going to link to you. It is much easier to turn Techmeme visitors into readers of your blog than the Digg folks. You are also much more likely to get links if you are on Techmeme because (1) I suspect most people that read Techmeme have blogs themselves and (2) linking to each other is the whole point of Techmeme.

In the end, I think Techmeme is like one of those rock bands that musicians and critics love but the general public has no clue exists. Its influence far outweighs the size of its fan base.

I got an interesting e-mail today from MediaPost's Just an Online Minute… blog.  Today, Wendy Davis reports that Facebook is working on setting up profile pages tailored to music groups, which is how MySpace gained traction, and allowing users to differentiate "friends" based upon professional and personal circumstances — a la LinkedIn — and granting different access levels to personal profiles.

Personally, I hope both of these developments are true since they'll improve Facebook.  However, why did it take so long?  Granted, opening up itself to external developers to produce a plethora of applications was unique, but it seems like Facebook is playing catch up when it comes to music and defining "friends" better.

Better late than never I guess.

After all the work I've done on newspaper websites and talking with a group of newspaper publishers last week, I realize that I get asked the same questions quite often.  There are some common misconceptions in the newspaper industry regarding the Web, and I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight and correct these typical mistakes. 

1. The Internet is the Enemy.

This is a big one. As newspapers continue to lose print circulation, the Web is becoming the scapegoat.  Newspapers should know that the Internet is only an enemy if they fail to use it correctly. Largely, the web is an untapped resource for newspapers.

2. We must display all of our site's content all over the homepage.

If you look at typical newspaper websites, the content is often strewn all over the place without any sense of organization. Newspapers often feel the need to display all of their content on the homepage.  This is a mistake–too much content can be overwhelming.  Littering a homepage with buttons and links distracts people's eyes and prevent them from focusing on anything.  Newspapers are better off leading with a couple of big headlines and pictures, letting a strong navigation do the rest of the work.

3. People will pay for content online.

If the current situations at NYT and WSJ aren't enough to prove this, I direct you to Mark Glaser's posts over at MediaShift here. People don't want to pay for average, generalized content online. They might pay for personalized and unique content that provides a specialized service.  But charging for run-of-the-mill stories just isn't going to work. Unless you really have something superior to offer, registration barriers are only going to hurt your traffic. Newspapers are better off offering their online customers the ability to create an optional user profile–in this way, newspapers can get demographic info valuable to advertisers, and users get something in return. 

4. We can't compete with Craigslist and other classifieds providers.

This is just wrong. Newspaper can compete in online classifieds. But to do so, they need to revamp their systems for creating ads and make them much more user- and web-friendly.  Here's an example of how this can work.

5. Websites are complicated and we don't have the time to deal with them.

While #4 was just wrong, this is just silly.  Barriers to entry to the online world–costs and technical requirements–are dropping everyday.  The Web is getting easier and cheaper as we speak.  Sites like the New York Observer (built in free, open-source Drupal), are examples of how newspapers can build great sites using technology with low technical and cost barriers.  No excuses! 

I noticed a new addition to the great library of resources on washingtonpost.com this afternoon.  It seems they've added a local blog directory.  It includes some useful features, like searching according to neighborhood, keyword, and tag.  They also display the most recently updated blogs, and offer a new feature for people to tag their Flickr photos "wpblog" to get their photos listed.  

I signed TBR up for this, and while the process was pretty painless, there were a few minor glitches.  First, you have to be a member of wapo.com to get your blog listed–I have absolutely no problem with this.  But, the sign-in area on the blog directory needs to be a bit more clear. It asks for your username and password, when WashingtonPost.com actually just uses email addresses as usernames.  That was a bit confusing.  I also ran into a couple of broken links in the process.  Overall, however, I think it's a pretty easy to use system.

In our newspaper study, we mention "complementing print online" quite a bit. The Washington Post has done this well, and has developed its crossover audience–number of people that use both print and online editions–by offering interesting online features.  We've talked about the site's databases before, and the local blog directory is just one more feature that will attract more visitors online.  Well done!

I spent the weekend up in Boston, MA at the New York Press Association's fall meeting. It was a great conference attended by publishers of all sorts of newspapers in New York State.  It was a diverse group of people–from seasoned Web veterans to those just getting their newspaper websites started.  

I  had the opportunity to give a presentation Friday morning about opportunities for newspapers online–with my talk based on the results from our 2007 newspaper study.  I tried to show that the Web, while a direct competitor for print, doesn't have to be solely a threat to newspapers. Rather, the Web can present a myriad of opportunities for newspapers, if they just use a little creativity and try new things.  My presentation was well received, and I think that everyone in the room was able to take away some tidbit of information for use at their home paper. You can take a look at my slides here.

Some other speakers at the conference made some really interesting presentations. Peggie Stark Adam presented the results of Poynter's 2007 EyeTrack study, which uses special equipment to track the way people read content in print and online.  She made some great points, and the study's major conclusion, that people read printed content and Web content differently, proves what a lot of people have been thinking for a long time.  Instead of rehashing the results here, I will simply point you to the results on Poynter's website. 

Bill Ostendorf, from Creative Circle Media Consulting, spoke about his experiences redesigning newspaper websites. He was a dynamic speaker, and reiterated a lot of what we have been saying about newspaper websites on our blog and in our studies, but in a much more in-your-face kind of way.  He really got the point across that newspaper websites generally stink, and showed some ways that his company has helped newspapers redesign their sites.  His company has developed what look like pretty effective content management systems for newspaper homepages and online classifieds sections.  A couple of things he said really stuck with me:

"Newspapers are Stupid! Don't Copy them!"–By this, Bill meant that newspapers, even the big ones, often get the Web wrong.  Despite this, newspapers have been copying each other online for years, which has resulted in LOTS of bad newspaper sites.

"Newspapers are smart and experienced! Learn from them!"–By this, Bill was referring to the success newspapers have had with engaging readers in their print editions. Newspaper websites can definitely take some cues from the basics here and improve their sites immensely.

Bill also made some great points by comparing the Apple and Google sites, two of the most successful websites in the history of the world, with typical newspaper sites like the Providence Journal, the Philadelphia Daily News , or the Honolulu Advertiser. I think his phraseology was, "Would you dress like that??"  Point taken.

Anyway, I thought the conference had a great mix of speakers, and there was definitely something for all kinds of newspaper publishers there, from discussions about design, CMS, advertising, marketing, and other topics.  So, NYPA, thanks for having me! 

Overnight, FoxBusiness.com launched to preview Rupert Murdoch's long awaited answer to CNBC — the Fox Business Network, which launches in two weeks.  The site is in promo phase and looks nice. 

It claims to have blogs for each featured on-air personality, but I'm not sure if that is the case.  I don't see any place for site visitors to comment, link to an individual post, or subscribe to RSS feeds. 

Granted, I don't want to claim the right to define blogs as a feature that require easy access to individual post links, commenting, and RSS feeds, but those seem very common features. Further, I understand that while the site is in its promo stage, and the site may not want to enable these features yet.  Most blog CMS products enable users to control these features at the post level. 

However, right now the "blogs" are just a place for the on-air talent to introduce themselves in their own voices.  Site visitors, on the other hand, cannot easily provide feedback, link to, or subscribe to them.  Hopefully, the blogs will get these features soon.

What do think are the standard features of a blog?  Do features define this term or not?