Another curious omission is the ability to comment, given Delaney’s opening statements which profess: “We view the creation of Quartz as just the beginning of an ongoing process, and we hope it will be a collaborative one.” Readers are encouraged to email the editors directly or share content via the usual channels at the end of each article, instead. Seward said that Quartz believes social media has replaced commenting as means of response to an article—if you like it, you’re going to tweet about it and post it elsewhere before you’re going to add your thoughts at the end. “A lot of sites will drop a commenting thing in their site, figuring that’s what you’re supposed to do,” he said. “But if that system isn’t well integrated and your team isn’t interacting with it, it’s not adding value.” It also shields Quartz from public criticism in their own pages, of course. Seward said the site is working on ways to integrate comments in the future. But if this is genuinely collaborative journalism, it is a more restrained effort than the Guardian’s crowd-sourced content, for example.
Looking forward
The greatest challenge for Quartz will be attracting a readership away from well-established brands (and much bigger newsroom resources) of places like The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, especially with the wide-ranging topics its reporters plan to cover. Given that Quartz is unlikely to match its competitors on original reporting, editors are hoping that the site’s visual appeal and personal tone will take them far. “It would be a win for us if Quartz became recognized as a discerning eye,” Seward said.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled Kevin J. Delaney’s last name.
How exactly true to character of CJR to view the presence of links as a sign that Quartz is "lacking in original content." As we talked about on the phone, Hazel, putting up a link post takes minutes while publishing an originally reported, 3,000-word piece on Polish startups -- dateline: Warsaw -- takes days or weeks. We have plenty of both as well as tons of content that defies your reductive, traditional view of original content vs. aggregation. You actually managed not to discuss any specific content we've published, but readers can go check out the balance themselves.
Our goals are just to cite our sources, acknowledge that there's a whole wide world of great business reporting, and point our readers to material they should see. Only CJR could manage to view the presence of links as a sign of weakness. That's kind of perfectly captured by your complaint that some links on Quartz don't open in a new tab by default, "a curious decision by a new site hoping to get people to stick around." Hah! No. We're thrilled if readers leave Quartz because we've pointed them to great material elsewhere because we know they'll love us for it and come back for more.
#1 Posted by Zach Seward, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 07:57 AM
"Given that Quartz is unlikely to match its competitors on original reporting, editors are hoping that the site’s visual appeal and personal tone will take them far."
This sentence is a tour de force of apathy that no outlet that thought its articles mattered would ever publish.
While Qz may not have the staff of hundreds of a WSJ/Ft, what it lacks in size it can top in creative agility, as already evidenced in its first pieces about Facebook in Africa, Polish Startups or the Japan-China standoff.
I think everyone in the business is ecstatically waiting to see what Qz does and hoping it provides some clarity for other outlets to follow.
#2 Posted by Excited for Qz, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 08:25 AM
Thanks for leaving a comment here, Zach. Would love to leave one on Quartz, but alas ...
Maybe you're thrilled when readers leave Quartz (in the middle of reading an article sometimes, since intra-article links do take the reader off the site and into internet oblivion), but are your advertisers? You know, the four companies who are sponsoring Quartz through this year?
Would also love to know what your plans are for improved interactive graphics and data -- a mobile-first design is begging for this, is it not?
#3 Posted by Sara Morrison, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 11:55 AM
Zach, just some friendly advice: Grow some thicker skin and be gracious and open-minded to your critics and audience... they're the same people for the most part.
Perhaps Atlantic should invest in a PR crash course.
A better way to have handled it:
"Thanks for the coverage guys, we're keeping an eye on the links to see how our audience interacts with the site and as we discussed on the phone, ramping up original reporting as we head out of the shoot. We've got some outstanding original content on the site right now that we think CJR readers would love to know about. Would be happy to discuss any of our original reporting for a future article. Thanks again guys."
Also, a platform is merely a platform. What matters is the content. People will forgive "janky" for quality content. When an outfit gets consumed with the platform you end up with Huffpo TV... yikes!
#4 Posted by benito, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 01:44 PM
I to am a little surprised by the tone here. Maybe if linking out a lot and using smart aggregation is something that the traditional news industry hasn't done much, then it's high time someone tried it.
Would CJR only be happy with an editorial and business strategy that looked exactly like everything that's come before?
#5 Posted by Jonathan Stray, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 02:01 PM
How exactly true to the character of a self-important member of a startup to defend said startup in the comments section of a different publication by smugly implying "you wouldn't get it because you're not cutting-edge like we are here at Startup X."
Seward comes off as juvenile in his comment (dateline: fragile ego), especially when referencing an article that: a) has several off-site links in its own lead paragraph and b) is generally quite complimentary of the new Quartz product.
Sheffield's right in lauding the smoothness of the product, and not wrong in pointing out that it does seem weird to send people off your new site, whatever your motive for doing so. Her criticism was not that linking was bad (the straw man that Seward argued against) but that it would make more sense to have links open in new windows.
Way to ingratiate yourself and your new product to established entities trying to cover it, Zach.
#6 Posted by Mr. Snarkerson, CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 02:17 PM
The ref'd Nieman article got to content like 6th. That's pretty FoN.
The Qz article on the coming time of energy abundance reads like something from 1962. "Too cheap to meter."
So natural gas can be easily had, eh? Has anyone started toting up the cost of that stuff in water? Just asking.
Juvenile doesn't begin to cover it.
#7 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 26 Sep 2012 at 06:22 PM
Just read an editorial on qz.com saying Steve Jobs would never have apologized for Google Maps. The article talks generally and never addresses what should be the main concern of such a statement: whether and how Steve Jobs might have apologized in the past. Without such nuance, the writing seems to reflect a lack of perspective and something of a thoughtlessness in both the writer and in whoever might be editing over there.
Read this for the first source debunking that article's premise:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/openiphoneletter/
Am disappointed.
Wanted to comment on the article, but could not, of course, so did here.
#8 Posted by Seth Sheffield, CJR on Fri 28 Sep 2012 at 10:54 PM
I also was a bit put back by the "no comment" feature when I came across an article on Quartz that struck me as thoughtful and original but also a bit flawed. I was just aching to clarify some points that I felt the author missed, and was disappointed that I couldn't. I had to think through whether I wanted to tweet about an article that raised important questions but didn't represent my worldview. I decided to tweet about it anyway, but was dissatisfied that I couldn't present my contentions within the confines of the tweet. In the meantime, I chose not to share it to Facebook, which would have given me more room to add thoughts, because I tend to use that site more for personal than professional purposes, and I didn't feel that the article (and especially my esoteric thoughts on it) would have been particularly relevant to my grandpa and my former music instructor and other random Facebook friends.
But that's just my personal experience. The broader issue here is whether indeed "social media has replaced commenting as a means of response to an article," as Seward reportedly believes. Is it true that people are more likely these days to share content than comment on it? I don't have any data on this, so I don't know for sure, though my guess is that people don't comment as much with the mobile devices that Quartz is built for as they do with personal computers and home-office setups. That said, I believe that direct commenting is far from dead, and often leads to some great discussion, with high-quality comment forms sometimes proving as or even more valuable than the original article. I also think that social media poses some big limitations to thoughtful commenting and that the best responses are usually on-site.
I, for one, hope that Quartz does add comment features in the future, but it would be interesting to hear more about their views on the future of commenting. Perhaps they know something I don't?
#9 Posted by Will Greene, CJR on Sat 8 Dec 2012 at 11:25 AM
Now for a few thoughts on the outbound link issue:
I also dislike how links don't open up in new windows. One thing that I frequently do when reading articles is click on the outbound links just to give them a quick skim or glance. If they look worthwhile, I'll usually keep them open in separate tabs and come back to them later, once I'm done with the article at hand. Quartz's interface requires me to always choose between one or the other, and not easily save anything for later. This, to me, is a limitation.
Here's another problem: when I do in fact navigate to another site via an outbound link, and then navigate back, I'm not taken back to the same part of the original story that I came from, so I then have to go and find my way back to where I ended previously. So it's hard to navigate smoothly in and out.
#10 Posted by Will Greene, CJR on Mon 10 Dec 2012 at 08:39 PM