Joanne Jacobs - Points of View

1. The top post on Joanne Jacobs’ blog is about using hip-hop as a teaching tool. Jacobs quotes a Teacher Magazine article that claims incorporating hip-hop rhymes, songs, dances and videos with other traditional teaching material helps students connect to tough concepts more easily. As a regular visitor to this site, I actually like this post because it is longer and more colorful than some of her other posts. As usual, I would like more commentary and opinion from Jacobs, but she only offers one vague sentence at the end of the post. I definitely think the teaching method mentioned in her post is innovative and clever and I found the reference links in this post helpful. I would visit this site again because I like the variety.

2. If I were visiting this blog for the first time because of interest in how hip-hop relates to education, I would not be very pleased with this site. I might use this post as a first step in a search for information, but it is not deep enough for me to get a complete picture of hip-hop teaching methods. Jacobs’ latest post could point someone in the right direction and provide good links, but I don’t think this first-time user would return. Jacobs’ posts are varied and will probably never touch on hip-hop education again. This post does serve a good purpose for someone doing preliminary research, but provides nothing substantial on the top item’s topic.

3. If I stumbled on this blog purely by chance, I would still find this top post interesting and somewhat useful. I like the idea of a NASA-endorsed hip-hop group that teaches kids about Newton’s Law. I think Flocabulary’s method of teaching rhymes sounds like an effective spin on old ways of memorizing information. But without commentary from Jacobs, I have no idea if this site will keep posting content that is relevant to my interests. I would prefer to get a sense of the author’s point of view upfront in their blog. It’s those strong opinions or analysis that hook a reader and keep them coming back.

Capital Notes - Recent Post Reaction

The recent post on Capital Notes, "Nolo Contendre = Solo Contender?" was posted on Friday, October 30, 2009. The story provides more thought, insight and opinion on the recent announcement of Gavin Newsom's abandonment to the governor's race.

As a regular visitor to the site I find this post typical of the author, John Myers. Intertwined with witty commentary, extra background information and possible explanations, the post makes the reader think about the intentions of Mr. Newsom and what exactly is going on with the political race.

For someone who is new to the site, but has found the post because of an interest in the topic, the reader might find Myers' input refreshing as he adds a twist and leaves the reader waiting for more information on the topic, or the reader might not like the slight sarcasm. The reader would most likely read other stories by Myers and take an interest to his blog. The stories are easy to follow and entertaining but only follow stories about the Capital and politics.

If a first-time visitor came across the site by happenstance, the reader would probably read the post because of the catchy title. The site is simple and not distracting allowing the visitor to focus on the stories and not confused with too many ads and where to navigate to. Unless the first-time visitor was interested in politics or the happenings at the Capital, the visitor would probably not visit the site again.

Perspectives of Mondoweiss

Mondoweiss is a website that reports breaking Middle East news, but like most regular visitors know, the site is made mostly of opinion and commentary. The blogs written by Philip Weiss are enjoyed by regular visitors to the site who go back for his humor and passionate opinion about what's being said about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. 

Weiss is always quoting other sources and giving commentary. This week's top post titled "Anti-Anti-semitism (Colonist Rabbi issues book giving rules on when it's cool to kill gentiles)," would be interested in this post about West Bank colonist rabbis who are saying it's okay to kill children, babies and gentiles. The regular visitor would like the commentary and reading the quotes from the rabbis. The quotes are probably of particular interest but were obtained from other news sites, not from original reporting. This may cause the reader to stray off onto another site with more news on the subject and less opinion.

For someone who is interested in the site or top item's topic but is a first time user probably would enjoy the site's posts about news about the conflict. The user may like the site if he/she was looking for a credible opinion on the subject. Weiss's commentary brings attention to the to what the rabbi who is being endorsed by other West Bank rabbis which probably wasn't reported on in the news. In the post he wrote, "Babies and children? I never got this memo"which is a taste of his sarcasm about the issue of a certain rabbi condoning the killing of children and babies who threaten Israel.  

A first-time visitor who has come across the site by accident may find the quotes confusing because the post is a few sentences of commentary and a list of quotes from another source. Weiss usually doesn't state who said the quote he just uses hyperlinks to the original source. This could confuse users and draw them away from the site. A first-time visitor would only come back to the site if a user had an interest in Middle East politics. This type of visitor I think is the hardest for Mondoweiss to attract to the site and to continue to visit. 

Obviously regular users would probably be the most likely to return to the site. A first-time user interested in the subject might return if they liked the site. 

Kleiman From Varying Perspectives (#5)

Mark Kleiman’s blog, The Reality-Based Community, focuses on a variety of topics. The latest post is called the “Pants-on-fire award: Pelosi wants to put you in jail for not buying health insurance,” and as the title infers, the content deals with the House’s healthcare plan. The post is no more than another opinion-based commentary on the work of other bloggers and the statements of politicians.

Regular visitors to Kleiman’s site have come to expect posts like this. Kleiman assumes his readers are regulars and does not bother to mention full names of the people he refers to. He merely calls them by their last names, which suggests that he’s writing for an informed audience. The first part of the post says “I heard one of Boehner’s Buffoons yelling.” Only those who are closely following the healthcare debate would know that Kleiman is referring to House Minority Leader John Boehner. This post is very typical Kleiman, short and critical of other bloggers and politicians. Kleiman chastises Dave Camp, Ann Althouse, and Glenn Reynolds for posting and linking to a press release by Camp entitled “PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail.” Kleiman blames all three for spreading lies and not bothering to read the press release. I believe a regular visitor to the site would be pleased with Kleiman’s criticism and would already be familiar with the people he is talking about. These visitors are the ones that are mostly likely to understand Kleiman’s posts and return to the site regularly.

First-time visitors to Kleiman’s site, that are interested in the House’s healthcare plan, would most likely not find much value in this post. The post is definitely not news and merely features Kleiman’s opinion. Kleiman does address some of the concerns of the Republican party, but he does so in very critical way. Two of the bloggers he refers to are lawyers and because of this Kleiman concludes that “it’s hard to imagine that any of them might be sincere.” He labels one of John Boehner’s colleagues a “buffoon” and claims that none of the people he mentions are credible. Thus for a visitor looking for healthcare news, there is not much substance in Kleiman’s post. It is more opinion and name-calling than any real insight on the subject. I do not believe a visitor looking for healthcare information would return to Kleiman’s site unless they liked having their own anti-republican ideals affirmed or weren't concerned with real news content.

First-time visitors to Kleiman's site would most likely look at the "Pants-on-fire award" story and scroll down to see if the other posts were similar in nature. The majority of Kleiman's recent posts are concerned with government issues, though the gigantic sidebar on the left of the site lists topics ranging from art and urbanism to Walmart and religion. I believe most visitors would want to figure out who Kleiman is and might be intrigued by the advertisement on the site for his recent book. New visitors might click on this advertisement or visit the "about us" section. Visitors looking for hardcore news would turn up their noses at Kleiman's site and would not return. Visitors interested in opinions and commentary might like Kleiman's site, especially once they learn that he is a professor of public policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs. His posts are not designed for everyone and are aimed at readers who like reading opinions and are familiar with others in the blogosphere. These visitors are more likely to return to Kleiman's site.

ABC News Blotter- Different Perspectives

Site: ABC News Blotter

Story: ‘Cop Killer’ Gun Used In Ft. Hood Shooting, Officials Said.

When it comes to regulars of the ABC News Blotter, I think they would like the top post on the blog. It is what could be expected from the blog by being a little unexpected. The News Blotter tends to do pieces based on the largest items in the news at the time, however they dig a little deeper into a specific detail. This article fits right in, taking the Ft. Hood story, but detailing the gun used in the shooting. I think regulars will find it interesting because they know what to expect. If they visit the site often, they will know how to navigate the pages and get to all the information.

First time viewers of the site will probably like it as well. They would have most likely been googling ABC News or the Ft. Hood shooting. People with an interest in the Ft. Hood shooting would probably be very interested in this article because the headline is interesting and the article delves deeper into part of the story than most news blogs do. It is definitely a unique article. First time users may only read the first chunk of the article, though. Without scrolling down much it’s hard to see how long the article really is. It is broken up by other links that could trick the reader into thinking that’s the end of the article. However, the webpage loads very quickly, has a good headline and is easy to read, so a first time reader is likely to give it a chance when they already have an interest in the site or topic.

Someone who comes across the article by chance, may not have as much patience to dig through the website and scroll to the content. There are so many extraneous links, videos, ads, pictures and navigation; it is easy to get distracted. Without scrolling, there is no content other than the headline. Luckily the headline is written well and is rather interesting because it makes the reader want to know what it’s about, but if they don’t have an interest in the topic, they will most likely move on. Not being able to see any content on first glance puts al the pressure on the headline to attract a first-time user. The extra links may be able to pull an uninterested reader to another topic on the site, but they may also bog down the page and cause a reader to become uninterested.

The Daily Dish: Getting Perpective

Looking at the top posting, “No More Mister Nice Gays” on Andrew Sullivan’s blog, The Daily Dish, it’s hard to get a clear idea of what each perspective would get out of the site and the posting because it deals mostly with opinion.

 When it comes to the regular visitors to the site, this type of posting is something to be expected from Mr. Sullivan. A regular visitor should expect a healthy dose of opinion, and the latest posting is no exception. The site caters to the regular visitors, by not really changing the way he does things on his site. Obviously, if the regulars are interested in the subject or the site in general, the likelihood of a return is high.

When it comes to those site visitors coming to Mr. Sullivan’s blog for the first time, and are interested in the subject, in this case gay marriage campaigning, they might find the site to be interesting, because Mr. Sullivan does support and talks about subjects involving gay marriage and other issues of that nature frequently. Once again the opinion plays a role, and in my mind, giving an honest opinion serves both for and against the subject in question. In all honesty, it really depends on the feelings of the visitor when it comes to the opinions of Mr. Sullivan. If they are in agreement with the opinion, the probability of a return is fair, but not very good if they don’t agree.

When it comes to the third perspective, the person who comes to the site by happenstance, it is really hard to narrow down what they would think of the site, and the subject matter of the posting. If in agreement, the visitor might dig (if they care) a little more into the site, just trying to figure out what the site is about and who the writer is. The site serves these types in that there is a bio of the writer, but that is really all in the way of service. Looking at it on the whole, the return probability is not high for the people just coming to the site by happenstance.

Assignment 5

Write a reflection/reaction to the top story/post on the site you are tracking. Do this from a number of perspectives:
1. From the perspective of a regular visitor to the site.
2. From the perspective of somebody who is interested in the site or item's topic but is a first-time visitor to the site.
3. From the perspective of a first-time visitor who has come across the site by happenstance.
How well does the post serve each of those? How likely are visitors from each perspective to revisit the site/blog? Be sure your post includes a hyperlink to the relevant Web page. Your post is due by 6 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 10.