
How to Build a TimesMachine - hvo
http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/how-to-build-a-timesmachine/?ref=technology
======
hackuser
I love the NY Times but don't understand them. Their business is failing; they
risk the financial collapse of the world's leading institution of journalism
(IMHO), and they are investing resources in republshing old stories that
hardly anyone reads and already are available to the public, in a different
layout (if I understand correctly).

The resources they are diverting to this project are IT resources (along with
management attention, organizational focus, and precious funding), and IT is
their greatest challenge. I'd guess that a better use of those resources would
be to focus them on the core, existential issues: The website and app. Or at
least cut the expenses and improve the bottom line. Imagine if you were an
investor in some other business, similarly precarious, and saw projects like
these announced.

From the outside they seem to live in the past and to be obsessed with their
history and prestige. Could there be a better symbol of that than their
attention to what 30 year old stories looked like _on paper_? Ah, the good old
days, the province of history books - but not of successful businesses. The
Times' future depends 100% on how well they deliver the news, on computer
screens, today and tomorrow.

I know little about the NY Times business so maybe it's not as crazy as it
seems, but they sure worry me.

~~~
yolesaber
I work at the New York Times and sit very close to the main developer of this
project.

The NYT brand is one of the most valuable - if not the most - in investigative
journalism and so the pedigree of the institution is important in maintaining
both culture and a tradition of higher standards. This project was worked on
by a very small, dedicated team and the reason why it is championed is because
it showcases some of the best facets of the NYT's image: using new tech to
illumine the past and bring new insights. I find Times Machine incredibly
useful for research and recommend it to a lot of my friends who work in
academia.

I don't understand how you can say that the Times is 'living in the past'.
Their tech adoption is insane - developers are given a lot of leeway in what
technologies they choose, new options are constantly being evaluated, and the
Times is continually experimenting with novel approaches to displaying
informative content.

The Times is a profitable endeavor and in fact is growing quite a bit - we
reached one million online subscribers and still going. Your worries are
unfounded and honestly a bit myopic. The form of journalism is forever
changing and adapting with the era in which it reports. The Times is a hotbed
of innovation and new ideas about how news should be produced and consumed
(the R&D lab - [http://nytlabs.com/](http://nytlabs.com/) \- is awesome) and I
would hate to see that change in order to honor the so-called 'bottom line'.

~~~
hackuser
I don't work at the NY Times or any publication; I'm just a concerned reader;
so maybe an outside perspective from a IT professional, news junkie and
dedicated reader has a little value:

> it showcases some of the best facets of the NYT's image: using new tech to
> illumine the past and bring new insights. I find Times Machine incredibly
> useful for research and recommend it to a lot of my friends who work in
> academia.

With due respect, I worry this reflects the insular point of view that
concerns me:

Will this have any impact on the organization's finances or journalism? Very
few people do that kind of research and all the data was available already in
a different layout, if I'm not mistaken.

Also, "using new tech to illumine the past and bring new insights" is not a
'facet' of the Times' image for me - I've never thought of that before and
I've never sought the Times for that purpose. I see the Times as a leading
producer of news/journalism; I imagine almost every reader sees the Times the
same way; I've never heard otherwise. I suspect people inside the NY Times
place far, far more importance on the publication's history than readers do -
for readers, you're as good as today's articles. I'll literally go read the
Wash Post or FT right away if yours aren't doing the job.

> Their tech adoption is insane - developers are given a lot of leeway in what
> technologies they choose, new options are constantly being evaluated, and
> the Times is continually experimenting with novel approaches to displaying
> informative content.

That's happening behind the scenes, and I do read about it occasionally in the
tech world; it sounds fun. But I rarely see it significantly improve what is
delivered to me as a reader, and that is all that matters - again, I worry
that an insular perspective loses sight of that: 'we're doing great things'
(that have no great impact on the outside world). The dynamic graphics are
sometimes nice, but sometimes gimmicky and rarely technically impressive -
dynamic visualizations are not an innovation at this point.

Which brings up another concern: The Times still seems to lack fluency (the
best word I can think of) with non-text mediums, from multimedia to
visualizations. What I mean is that the Times still speaks in text - a relic
of the limitations of paper. Other mediums are foreign enough that they still
are special events (look at our special interactive graphic!) rather than part
of the ordinary means of communicating every story. And the other mediums are
appendices or decorations to text rather than just another part of a unified
narrative: I don't recall a story saying: 'here was the scene in Bagdhad:
<short video or even animated gif> Highlighted on the right you can see
security forces rushing in before the explosion, not after ... but here is the
Prime Minister saying otherwise <short video>' or even seeing multimedia
integrated in art reviews, which often are very visual subjects; for example,
'here is the how the Bolshoi handled this complicated step last night <short
vid>; and you can see the NY City Ballet doing the same sequence a year ago.
<short vid> Watch the ballerina's right foot ...' How about, 'here is Hilary
Clinton's reaction to the vote count <short vid>', so readers can see her
expression and hear her voice, rather than just read a dry, pro forma quote
drafted by her staff? I see bloggers do it, but not the Times (or other 'old
media' organizations).

> The Times is a profitable endeavor and in fact is growing quite a bit

From what I've read, the Times has had large layoffs and other cuts, revenue
is a fraction of what it was ten years ago (AFAIK due to loss of advertising -
an industry-wide problem in newspapers), and my understanding is that it is
not sustainable in its current form but looking hard for a solution. I don't
have time to look up the details, but I don't think my description is far off
the mark. I hope I'm wrong! Best of luck to you guys.

------
rgbrgb
Deep side note...

> We’ll illustrate with this quote by Abraham Lincoln:

> "The secret of getting ahead is getting started."

I looked for the source of this quote and found that it's actually usually
attributed to Mark Twain but was perhaps never said by him [0].

[0]: [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/a-guide-
to-...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/a-guide-to-fake-
quotes-on-the-internet)

