Telegraph (6 Viewers)

Nick

Administrator
Doesn't show how much is generated by CCFC and the SISU disaster.... I would think that alone accounts for some proportion of interest generated..

A fairly decent chunk would be CCFC based whether football or non football. Will be screwed when SISU go and they have to be positive about CCFC in every article :)
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
A Gilbert-esque reply.

Anything to do with masses of misleading clickbait? If judged just on how many people have opened a page it doesn't take quality into consideration so not sure how it's a reply when people discuss quality.

If employing people solely to copy and paste articles and then hammer the shit out of them on social media with misleading titles then of course daily views will go up. It's the lad bible approach.

It's up there with just screenshotting "most read" as a reply when somebody says anything about the quality or how it's unrelated to Coventry.

I said something seems to be working for them. (Not me)
I prefer it how it used to be.
I also feel it has become very regionalised recently. We get a lot more news both nationally and regionally. When actually I prefer it to be just news that affects Coventry and Warwickshire. I get the other news elsewhere.
Oh and by the way I dislike the Sun newspaper immensely so this article wasn't the best news all round for me. It's and endorsement of both the Sun's slant on the world we live in and an endorsement of the new CET approach. (Neither of which I like).
Also don't think it is the SISU saga that has helped as that wasn't as prominent last year compared to previous years.
Unfortunately for CET. This will be the sort of thing that says crack on with the new way it's working
 

Nick

Administrator
I said something seems to be working for them. (Not me)
I prefer it how it used to be.
I also feel it has become very regionalised recently. We get a lot more news both nationally and regionally. When actually I prefer it to be just news that affects Coventry and Warwickshire. I get the other news elsewhere.

That's because they bring in content from say Liverpool and use the headlines so people click thinking it's in Coventry, but really the woman hitting the bouncer is in Liverpool so nobody is bothered.

They blocked me because I asked what an article had to do with Coventry.. Their usual reply is "thousands of people were interested".

They will just be judged on how many people open the site, that is all of the willy waving that goes on is about.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I know, it's just how the "you are wrong because views are up" is the standard response. The same as "well thousands who have read it disagree" as if they have been asked what they thought about the article.

That would be correct if the statement was "I bet page views are down" but not relevant when going on about quality :)

Welcome to capitalism. This approach is the most efficient form of making money from journalism so it’s what prevails.

Short of funding it out of taxation and all the issues that go with state media I’m not sure what can be done. It’s clickbait or die these days.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
That's because they bring in content from say Liverpool and use the headlines so people click thinking it's in Coventry, but really the woman hitting the bouncer is in Liverpool so nobody is bothered.

They blocked me because I asked what an article had to do with Coventry.. Their usual reply is "thousands of people were interested".

They will just be judged on how many people open the site, that is all of the willy waving that goes on is about.

Yes I agree
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
I use an adblocker, if I had to face all that shite I wouldn't ever look.
Better not to look.

I have tried lots of news sites & BBC & Guardian are the least commercial I found at the time.
BUT recently I decided to try Reuters - and hurrah! Low on ad's & seems very low on bias.

The articles are more political, economy or military related. None of this celebrity tittle-tattle so if you wanna know who is in bake off or strictly you have to look elsewhere

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Welcome to capitalism. This approach is the most efficient form of making money from journalism so it’s what prevails.

Short of funding it out of taxation and all the issues that go with state media I’m not sure what can be done. It’s clickbait or die these days.
I do wonder if it's the best long-term however. Undoubtedly short-term it works, but if (when!) they lose their reputation and authority, will it slip?

A bit like bands who get big label backing, they might get one big album, but then having sold-out, they lose the loyal base who buy regardless.
 

Nick

Administrator
I do wonder if it's the best long-term however. Undoubtedly short-term it works, but if (when!) they lose their reputation and authority, will it slip?

A bit like bands who get big label backing, they might get one big album, but then having sold-out, they lose the loyal base who buy regardless.

At the minute let's face it the Telegraph for example can get away with it mainly because there isn't really anywhere else to look for Coventry related news.

If for example Google started moving into localised news people would just use that. It's not loyalty so much it's just no real other options if you want to see about news in Coventry.

A lot of it isn't about news, it's just about seeing what's trending online and trying to shoehorn something about Coventry in and then hammering the shit out of the clickbait.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I dug into this a bit the last time they announced big gains as it seemed a bit suspect. Turns out the methodology they use to arrive at these figures is seriously flawed and has been binned by pretty much everyone. Read that the Australian equivalent press body dumped it when the figures were showing far more people than the entire population of Australia were supposedly reading small town local papers!

Its also a nonsense to compare it to old circulation figures. You can click on the home page, take 30 seconds scanning it, decide there's nothing to read and close the site. You've been counted. The print equivalent was one sale, yet how many print copies sold were read by just 1 person?
To me its the equivalent of counting everyone who glanced at the headline board outside the newsagents as a reader.
And of course how much revenue does a click on the website bring in compared to a paper sale?

Trinity Mirror will have more meaningful data such as the amount of time each person spends on the site, how many stories they click on etc but that doesn't get realised. Given the rate at which Trinity Mirror are closing local papers you have to think it doesn't make good reading.
 

Nick

Administrator
I dug into this a bit the last time they announced big gains as it seemed a bit suspect. Turns out the methodology they use to arrive at these figures is seriously flawed and has been binned by pretty much everyone. Read that the Australian equivalent press body dumped it when the figures were showing far more people than the entire population of Australia were supposedly reading small town local papers!

Its also a nonsense to compare it to old circulation figures. You can click on the home page, take 30 seconds scanning it, decide there's nothing to read and close the site. You've been counted. The print equivalent was one sale, yet how many print copies sold were read by just 1 person?
To me its the equivalent of counting everyone who glanced at the headline board outside the newsagents as a reader.
And of course how much revenue does a click on the website bring in compared to a paper sale?

Trinity Mirror will have more meaningful data such as the amount of time each person spends on the site, how many stories they click on etc but that doesn't get realised. Given the rate at which Trinity Mirror are closing local papers you have to think it doesn't make good reading.

Yep, that's the "bounce rate" which is the percentage of visitors who navigate away from the site after viewing only one page. So they might click on a link from Twitter, then close it. Having 2 videos hit you when you open the link will affect that massively (but again it makes their video view rate look good).

It can't be compared to old figures or traffic either, as now they are aiming for these figures only and shouting about them as they are hiring content writers who will copy and paste articles, scan through Twitter looking for half news Coventry related and then turn the tweet from a woman who tweeted "just fell down the stairs" into "coventry woman cheats death" story.

Again, not just CovTel specific. Far from it. It's like judging a shop based on how many people look through the window but don't buy anything.
 
Last edited:

mechaishida

Well-Known Member
I only ever venture onto the CET site with my ad-blocker firmly enabled. Even so, some ad scripts manage to bypass it, and behold the notebook-crashing phalanx of redirections and surveys if I dare click an external link.

This third party money making shite really makes the site barely worth visiting anymore.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Better not to look.

I have tried lots of news sites & BBC & Guardian are the least commercial I found at the time.
BUT recently I decided to try Reuters - and hurrah! Low on ad's & seems very low on bias.

The articles are more political, economy or military related. None of this celebrity tittle-tattle so if you wanna know who is in bake off or strictly you have to look elsewhere

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
I've been starting to watch euronews a little lately.
Just short punchy peices about shit that happens daily on the planet.
No real slant on people or personalities
 

Ranjit Bhurpa

Well-Known Member

A few months ago I visited the lady who lived next door to my Great Gran in Exhall, not been there for years and lo and behold she still has an outside toilet complete with painted brick walls, lagged pipes and the overhead cistern with chain. No meat hook though!
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
That's because they bring in content from say Liverpool and use the headlines so people click thinking it's in Coventry, but really the woman hitting the bouncer is in Liverpool so nobody is bothered.

They blocked me because I asked what an article had to do with Coventry.. Their usual reply is "thousands of people were interested".

They will just be judged on how many people open the site, that is all of the willy waving that goes on is about.

Non of what they do bothers me at all really. They can fill their boots. What does annoy me is their employees insisting they don't do what they clearly do do. Admit the majority of it is clickbait nonsense and be done with it.
 

oucho

Well-Known Member
Is this just me, or is anyone else having the below problem - nothing on their CCFC last night, or today:
Cov tel.PNG
Cue the jokes about "the most interesting reporting they've done in years", "far more accurate than usual" etc
 

Nick

Administrator
Non of what they do bothers me at all really. They can fill their boots. What does annoy me is their employees insisting they don't do what they clearly do do. Admit the majority of it is clickbait nonsense and be done with it.

Thousands disagree.

(INSERT SCREENSHOT OF MOST READ)
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
I've been starting to watch euronews a little lately.
Just short punchy peices about shit that happens daily on the planet.
No real slant on people or personalities
Yep...I watch that too sometimes

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
The death of that Florida bodybuilder is soon to be the lead headline on the local paper site, as it should be. Millions are interested
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top