Lifting Journalism by Knowing What Readers Are Looking For

The issue of “personalisation” of information is a big one and one which has been bothering me for a while. All writers aim to engage their readers: indeed knowing your audience and purpose are the first rules of effective writing. But, the problem with “personalisation” is that at best it can result in a loss of privacy and a lack of freedom and choice. At worst, ignorance and manipulation. How dare a computer algorithm decide what I want or need to know? I know that AI thinks it’s smarter than I am and that it knows me better than I know myself, but it doesn’t. Invasion of privacy is one thing, but making decisions for me or about me and doing it with only a fraction of the information is going to be worse than loss of privacy. Because it’s going to be wrong. Further, even if I don’t click on a story, it doesn’t mean I’m not interested in it. It maybe that the headlines are enough and I pretty much know what the article will say anyway, so I decide not to explore the issue further, but I’m still glad I saw it. Like other NYT readers, my worst nightmare would be to be trapped in my own echo chamber that is dictated by my previous choices and a computer’s half-baked decisions about what I want to know. If you read NYT, especially if you do it from another country, you’re doing it because you think the local media coverage is too parochial and you want to expand your mind. That’s what I’m buying.

Another thing that neither SEO nor even a web site can do is replicate the wonder of turning a printed page and discovering a story on a subject that is entirely new to you. While The Times’ site has great navigation, it’s still easier to miss such interesting stories there than in the print edition. Instead of everyone at The Times trying to tailor pieces to our individual interests to gain clicks, perhaps the organization should focus on coverage that will help readers to broaden those interests. I already absorb enough media to have a pretty good idea of what’s trending without someone having to spell it out for me. I would rather see more coverage of what’s not trending so that I can learn something new and become a better-educated human being.

Uh, I read the NYT online every day. I model my reading on what I did with the newspaper. I never ever use search engines to find news. Didn't seem necessary when I read the paper, doesn't now online. I never consider the front page of Yahoo or Google News when deciding what to read. I don't even search within the NYT environs. I may follow links, pursue the past, read everything in a section or by a good writer. I may even just look at pictures and captions. Just FYI, no SEO needed, I'm good for the subscription fee.

To all of the commenters here who are "horrified" and "canceling" and "think these so-called SEO experts couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag": This is yet another example of people "reading" articles and not understanding the subject matter. As a SEO expert (not so-called) and a New York Times subscriber and fan, I can tell you that without Claudio's hard work and dedication your Times experience would be greatly diminished. Mr. Cabrera is not framing or shaping the news based on what algorithms and trending searches say — quite the opposite. Mr. Cabrera is making sure the articles the Times is writing are ranking well for search and social so they are visible and can be shared because it's that sharing and that ranking that allows conversation like this to matter, to be seen. In my SEO and social work for the past 12 years, I've started each day off by checking trends and how articles are performing in rankings. The higher they are and the higher I can get them, the more likely people are to find them. Not everyone gets to a story by going to the Times homepage or opening the iPhone app. People tweet and do good ol' Google searches. And to address some other concerns, if a topic is trending and the Times decides that's worth writing about, well, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not publishing just to get on the traffic train, it's publishing to account for the trending topics people are talking about. Don't cancel. Re-read if you must, but don't cancel.

FCC Guidleines described as critical information for an informed society are: Policing, public safety, public health hazards, local conditions and differences between affluent and not so affluent neighborhoods, quality of education, access to education, local transportation systems and who is served and how well, economic development, environmental conditions, employment and training opportunities, civic information, local services, political life — who's show, what's what. Instead of looking at what people are reading, give us what we need and do that well. You don't need an app to find out if you remembered to get dressed.

Comments here at this point seem to reflect a lack of depth in this article. You haven’t explained clearly how you use the data you gather, nor have you explained what things like Google Trends do. This seems to me to be an article written for journalism insiders, not for members of the public. As a member of that public I am wondering why every morning I see the exact same articles written only slightly differently in every news source. I suspect it has something to do with article.

That was interesting. The NYT is fortunate to have Mr. Cabrera. And the planet is fortunate to have the NYT.

Yes, but... Shouldn't the newspaper cover what is NOT hot? As Nicholas Taleb says in "Black Swan" things n the newspaper are by definition what everyone knows about, and therefore, are not important.

Clicks do not make news. I am horrified that the issue of personal judgement and responsibility in choosing what matters most is not even broached in this interview. I understand now why I am getting so stressed and depressed as we all feed the beast that is controlling all media and sensationalizing our worst fears.

SEO is one of today’s most destructive elements against good journalism and good writing. I suspect these so-called SEO experts couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag. Clicks become more important than substance. Young reporters are distracted from learning how to turn a good phrase because the SEO police are hovering overhead to remind them to insert key words where none are really needed. Just look at the declining quality of writing across a broad media spectrum and you’ll see what I mean. If The Times keeps on publishing groundbreaking news and continues to mount a navigable web site, then SEO isn’t needed. Write well, report provocatively and make your work easy to find . . . and they will come.

I count on The New York Times to expand my mind, not to mirror it. Please keep your reliance on such technology to a minimum, if you use it at all.

The New York Times has always been the role model for world journalism- especially in fairness and diverse opinions. Foreign publications are far less inclusive in diversity. You buy their publications and you know what you are buying. The changes I have seen may worries me as the world is a far more complex place and for which an international audience is looking for leadership on highly complex issues. Thankfully, the best in journalism is still available in the diversity of the reporting but the Home Page is what the world sees first. It's not only about the issues but rather where the editors place it - upper left side ? Journalism should be about uncovering issues and shedding light for the world to see.

And this, dear people, is why I am cancelling my subscription. Clearly it's not about genuine news, it's about what people want to hear, and if they think the latest Kardashian story rates a "news alert," well, good on them. I remember when it was otherwise. Sorry to see the death of "the newspaper of record."